The Effects of Femininity on Our Culture, Part VI: Our View of Masculinity

Boys are not yet men. In the ancient world, some cultures don't even seem to recognize the gender of children before puberty because they all seem to be one amorphous creature that is indistinguishable from the others. Think of how you can put long hair on a boy and everyone thinks he's a girl. Even though our culture has tried to do that with men, very few men can pull off the trick and only then with so much makeup that they could probably also pass as an alien or creature from the Black Lagoon. In this way, it's hard to distinguish boys from their feminine counterparts, i.e., girls.

Many who see the effeminization of our culture often try to counter it with a strong dose of what they think is masculinity. The problem is that femininity in our thinking runs so deep that often the counterattacks miss the mark or simply are too superficial in nature. 

For instance, I have seen a lot of men attempt to counter feminism with male chauvinism instead. So if women are lifted up too highly, at least in theory, then the counter would be to put them in their place by treating them as lesser. I have heard of men telling their wives to shut up in public or just being plain rude to them in ways that display to the other men that they are in control. I have seen men attempt to take upon the John Wayne persona by doing what little boys in our culture often think is manly like flaunting their ability to participate in "adult" things like smoking and drinking and cursing. In the so-called red-pill community how many women one can sleep with is included with the rest. I have seen men display extreme forms of competitiveness to show how fit they are, how able at sports they may be, how much they can lift, or in a more "spiritual" guise, how deep their theological speculations can be in coming up with new ideas or applications or how many new teachers from different traditions they can listen to in a similar way that Millennials used to try and outdo one another by finding the most obscure music and bands to listen to. Yet, when these same men are rebuked or corrected, many of them respond in defensiveness and even resentment toward those who would rebuke them, evidencing a spiritual weakness within. 

This is because their idea of masculinity is tainted by their current experience as warriors and therefore their counter to feminism isn't complete, and therefore, isn't balanced well. Biblical masculinity means different things depending upon what period of life the man is in but it has a mutual goal throughout all periods of a man's life. 

For brevity, I'll simply note the three stages of life for a man that I think are dominant: the boy, the warrior, and the sage.

Masculinity does not merely look like one thing in a man's life, therefore, but it should always be growing toward one thing, and that one thing is not bravado. The goal is to be like Jesus Christ in His spiritual toughness. Biblical masculinity then works toward spiritual toughness in a world where physical and social toughness cannot last. It is becoming like Christ as a warrior that joins God against the cosmic battle of dark forces in and around the world. The final stage of a man who has truly become a man in his life is the physically weak man lying on his bed having been fully prepared to meet his final enemy with the true spiritual strength of Jesus Christ to endure it.

This is not to say then that the warrior should not be physically tough and train himself to be physically tough for when he enters that stage in his life. But an old man is no longer a warrior. He is a sage. He has moved out of the physically competitive sphere and now needs to use wisdom to fight the spiritual battles within his community. Likewise, the boy is not a warrior but one who must be quiet and listen both to the instruction of the physical warriors, the younger men, and the spiritual wisdom of the older men, the spiritual warriors, i.e., the sages. If the boy does not do so, he will remain a boy, i.e., an untrained man who has the building blocks for a man but like an unfinished Lego set never becomes one.

Too often, this is flipped. The young men who are still spiritually weak and foolish are sought after to fight spiritual battles that belong to the older, i.e., elder, men of wisdom in our culture. This is because foolish people cannot distinguish between physically strong and spiritually strong people and our culture worships the warrior stage because we are materialists who look toward what we see as strong and healthy rather than toward ultimate strength and beauty. One who is spiritually strong is not merely one who is zealous or is learning as a teachable man. That is the plight of the boy and the warrior. One who is spiritually strong isn't merely so because he can win a wrestling match. That is the role of the younger men. But the spiritually strong are those who have been through the fire of spiritual battles, through the furnace of suffering, and have come out the other end spiritually stronger than they were before. The more experience one has in being spiritually tested, the stronger or weaker he will show himself to be, and prove whether he has achieved a proper place in his role as a sage.

Likewise, sages are judged by younger men based upon the criteria for what constitutes being a good man in the warrior stage and even sometimes in the boy stage. But if we judge men as we would a fish for how well it flies or a bird for how well it swims, we can justify any condemnation of someone for their lack of achievement as a man.

Masculinity is strength, but not mere strength, since many who are strong in one way are extremely weak and effeminate in others. It is strength used for fatherhood. It is disciplined strength to learn when men are boys. It is physical strength to defend and provide when men are young. And it is spiritual strength to learn the wisdom that the rest of the community needs to fight the ultimate war of our world. This means that it is being tough when rebuked and corrected as a young man rather than becoming resentful because biblical ideas are usually used by young men as sparring matches and no one wants to lose face by losing a sparring match. It means being humble to recognize what role in life you are playing and where you need to focus your time and energy. All stages should have evidences of the other within them but each aspect will usually and primarily be evident in one of the stages of manhood. 

In the Bible, the age of someone doing physical labor might be a good gauge the period of a boy, a warrior, and a sage. The warrior had to be at least 20 to join the military. For the priest to do the physical work of the tabernacle he had to be at least 25 and could not do it anymore once he was 50. Although he could still help, it was not to be of a physical nature but an advisory one. This is because the physical labor of the tabernacle was quite intense (constant killing and dissecting of animals, setting up the tent of meeting, grinding the grain and baking the shewbread, carrying the ark, etc.). It's likely these are the times of the warrior in ancient Israel. It may be quite different for us today, and I don't think that it is always based on age, but rather we see a tendency toward the roles during these times.

Now, to be sure, there are those in our culture who don't suffer much. They don't ever mature past the boy or warrior stage. There are also those by the grace of God who become sages in their youth but their youth is usually filled with suffering and trials. The true femininity in our culture is the comfort of not having to go through the suffering and sacrifice of war: war to provide for one's family, war to protect one's family from the physical threats of wicked men, war to protect and provide spiritually for one's family. Comfort from these things is not masculine. A life of luxury is a feminine life, where all of the these types of threats are taken care of so that the household in which the woman and her children live are at peace. This is not to say that in our fallen world women have taken upon themselves the role of men and have experienced war but merely that this ought not be. Likewise, men who look for comfort and peace without war tend toward the feminine life and never mature as men.

This is why I have always said that masculinity is fatherhood. What I mean by that is that masculinity is taking the strength: disciplined, physical, spiritual, and becoming a protector and provider of one's family with it rather than an abdicating destroyer of it. You will know them by their fruits. Warriors turn boys into warriors. Sages turn warriors into sages. But fools who live in luxury and comfort turn all into boys again.

What feminism has done to our culture is to convince it that masculinity has to do with degrading the woman in some way rather than in becoming less like women by having spiritual strength to fight spiritual battles with the wisdom gained from trials and suffering as our primary goal in life rather than the comfort and peace that riches and power bring us. Riches look to be provided for. Power looks to expel annoyance and discomfort, i.e., to be protected. We are looking for the role of the woman by looking for success in money and power. Women are to be provided for. Women are to be protected. Yet women are being degraded in front of others while we show our display of "manliness" through physical strength and how successful we are? 

Women are physically weak. They need protection and provision. This is not to say that womanhood does not have its own goal of being spiritually strong but its process looks different than the man's. The trials tend to be more internal struggles than wars fought against outside forces. There are exceptions to all things of course.

But feminism has affected our culture too deeply for it to be removed by such superficial gestures of bravado. We need real men to subject themselves to the teaching of the sages, the elders, rather than boys who think they have already arrived as sages and have no need of them. Arrogance can lead to the assumption of supremacy while in an inferior state. We need men who will understand that their physical strength must be reconstituted into spiritual strength if they are to see their physical strength restored one day in the new heavens and earth. We need men who subject the body to the spirit, who subject their physical strength to the works of God in providing for and aiding the poor, who subject their virility to God's commands concerning sexuality, who subject their tongues to speaking the truth in love and to edify rather than to tear down.

A sage would see the strength of masculinity in how you treat your wife and children, whether you take your role to exercise authority for the building up of your family rather than in the tearing down of others in order to feel like a man more than to actually be a man. 

Abdicating men refuse to enter into the ultimate war. After all, women don't go to war, or at least, they shouldn't. Effeminate men avoid the ultimate war even if they are forced to enter into physical ones that are foisted upon them.

Although women should be feminine, feminine men are wicked and are therefore wicked women. Wicked women will tear down others because they have no real strength. Women can only fight with the words of their mouths. Wicked men may replace spiritual strength with boasts of their physical acumen, but wicked men are weak men. They look to the outer man who is decaying day by day rather than the inner man who is renewed day by day in the image and glory of Christ. We must always remember that men who follow the path of the feminine are boys, and boys are not yet men.

The Effects of Femininity on Our Culture, Part V: Our Evangelism

One of the best quotes I have ever heard is this phrase concerning evangelism: "What you save them with is what you save them to." 

One of the easiest ways to see how our postmodern culture of femininity has effected our speech is in the area of evangelism. Because truth is something so subjective and cannot be objectively and authoritatively known by us, what really matters is uplifting the individual when we want to convince them of something. This means that we attempt to manipulate them through their emotions through various means. 

The first might be flattery. This means we seek to stroke the ego by affirming it. The second might be sentiment. This means that we might try and form some sort of connection with the individual toward which he is already inclined to be emotionally favorable. Common hobbies, experiences, relationships, etc. The third, as we have talked about so much already, is appealing to their own judgment so that they might judge Christ and the gospel favorably. In all of these, the ego is kept intact. 

I use the word "manipulate" here, not to say that all manipulation is evil. There are good uses of manipulation we see in Scripture, but they are always those who are subordinate to authorities that are higher than they are. Whether appeals made by Abigail to David, Esther to Xerxes, or Ruth to Boaz, appeals evidence a submissive relationship to the one in authority who must judge what is being presented to him.

This means that manipulation is the tool of the submissive, and although men need to be in submission in some of the relationships they have in their lives, when they are functioning in the role of ambassadors for God, they are not to take upon themselves a submissive tone that allows the hearer to conclude that he can take or leave the message that God has sent to him. 

In this regard, the feminization of our culture has turned many men into women. Men who should lead now follow. Men who should stand now sit. And men who should speak with authoritative commands now speak with appeal and manipulation. 

This is why the gospel is presented in ways that seem to be offering Jesus as the best product out there rather than as the only Mediator between God and men. It is why the wrath of God in the gospel is downplayed, why sentimental music and stories have replaced the authoritative and urgent tone of the gospel of the kingdom, i.e., the necessity of being under the dominion and rule of God in a dark and Satanic world moving toward eternal exile from the good created order.

This is why people think their testimonies are the gospel. Their personal experience with how Jesus has helped their lives mentally, emotionally, physically, etc. is the selling point to an autonomous person who needs to consider whether Jesus is the right product for him. 

He does not feel threatened by this sort of presentation of the gospel other than he just may be tired of people selling him things. But he feel good about the preacher and have a good feeling toward the negotiable version of Christianity he was presented since no one demanded anything over him or told him that he wasn't the lord of his life.

The feminine manipulation to move authorities is present every time we see a "church" attempting to appeal to the "unchurched" and unbeliever with entertainment and accommodation to their felt needs, i.e., wants. 

It's why we are so worried about losing people at church if they hear something too radical or too bizarre, which means anything that is so biblically exalting of God that it would destroy their own worship of the self in that area. 

Jesus is not a product that we are selling and we are not women who need to sell to their husbands the idea that the living room walls should be blue instead of white. If people leave because God is being exalted too much in the specifics rather than in the non-threatening generics, then let them leave. If people aren't going to receive you well on the street corner or at work or on campus because they hate the God who is life himself, then let them not receive you. If they reject Christ but receive you, you should be in terror rather than consider it a badge of honor. 

As Paul argued, we are not peddlers of the gospel, and as such, we smell a particular way to people who are perishing versus those who are being saved. In essence, we stink like death to those who are dying. Hence, blessed are you when you are spoken of poorly and hated because you have spoken Christ's commands as Christ would speak them and have them spoken. They do not hate you but Christ. If the flesh cannot receive the things of God under the lordship of Jesus Christ, and unregenerate men are nothing but flesh, then not only will you be rejected by Christians who are in their flesh but you will absolutely be hated by the unregenerated who are nothing but flesh. Appealing to their flesh is futile. You will do nothing but make false Christians and then have to continue to appeal to their flesh throughout your ministry so that you do not lose them when God is finally exalted in His Lordship over their lives as He should be.

"What you save them with is what you save them to." We must stop thinking that we are saving people by transferring their flavor of self-worship of the ego from non-churchianity to churchianity. And the only way to break out of being priests of that false religion is to take off our skirts and put on our big boy pants and start speaking like men who have a message from the Almighty God who reigns over the entire universe and commands all men everywhere to repent. 

The Effects of Femininity on Our Culture, Part IV: Our Identification of Sound Churches

 One work that everyone can and should read is Machen's Christianity and Liberalism. The most significant point, I believe, is when Machen argues that Liberalism should not be understood in terms of what it believes, but how it believes it. In other words, Machen argued that one cannot really determine the difference between liberal churches and Christian churches by what doctrines they affirm. Instead, one must ask whether or not it is necessary for one to affirm them in order to be a Christian. 

There are liberal churches that preach all sorts of Christian things. They just don't preach these doctrines authoritatively. Christians believe the Trinity, the incarnation, the virgin birth. It's great if you do, but not necessary.

Today, even if these churches do teach these particular doctrines authoritatively, they don't teach certain Christian ethics authoritatively. Certain ethics are taught as ideals but not necessary and in this regard these churches are antinomian. "You shouldn't divorce, but . . ." "Homosexuality isn't God's best, but . . ." These ethics are ideal but not evidence of one's spiritual condition before God. Voddie Baucham once argued that most sermons that preach against homosexuality begin with a fifteen-minute apology that explains how much the preacher is really on the side of the homosexual by wanting what is best for them. We want to make sure that everyone knows we're not authoritatively telling them what is right but suggesting to them what is best.

I would argue that the modern church's tendency toward appeal rather than command is of the same animal. A church that teaches the things of God in terms of appeal is not teaching the same religion as the church that teaches the things of God in terms of command. 

A good indicator of whether a church has sat under a teaching of appeal will be that there will be people with all sorts of beliefs and ethical practices that feel completely unjudged by the church in those areas even though they are contrary to the positions of the church. The church is seen as a safe space for these people because, even though they believe and do what is contrary to what is preached, the nature of appeal implies that there is no necessity to change in order to be a part of that community. In other words, these are ideals but not necessary. 

What this means is that a liberal church should not be identified simply as one that denies the Trinity or teaches that transgenderism is acceptable, but rather as any church that creates an environment of appeal rather than one of command when it comes to the teaching of the Word of God. Andy Stanley may say that homosexuality isn't God's ideal but he doesn't want to impose those ideals on sinners in any authoritative manner that would exclude them from Christianity, as long as they accept Jesus as their savior.

What that means is that many people in the West go to liberal churches even though the doctrinal statements of those churches would say otherwise. And, according to Machen, Liberalism is not Christianity. It is a different religion. Apostasy is not always so explicit. Heresy is more often a subtle denial of the importance of a vital teaching rather than an outright, explicit rejection of it. 

The Effects of Femininity on Our Culture, Part III: Our Discipleship

 In the last post I argued that our effeminized culture has had catastrophic effects upon our preaching, putting a major responsibility on preachers in our culture to fight against this tendency. However, today I want to turn the tables and say that the laity have been affected by femininity to such a degree that they are equally responsible, perhaps, even more so, for the state of the church in the West.

You see, if the desire of rebellious man is to seek out safe spaces where his ego is not bruised, he will seek out teachers/preachers/churches that do not bruise it. Like the children who would rather be around their mother than their father when it comes to getting what they want, they will seek out a discipleship from people who will appeal to them but not command them. Their interests, if it is to not feel inferior, appear to them to be threatened by one who speaks with authority. Hence, they will support those who say the same things, but not in the same way, with their time, finances, services, etc., and in doing so, give themselves the illusion that they are a part of the discipleship Christ requires of them. 

Instead, they have accumulated teachers for themselves that will stroke their egos rather than destroy them. After commanding Timothy to "preach the Word," he continues by saying that there are those who won't tolerate such teaching but seek out the type of teaching that is non-offensive to them.

For the time is coming when people will not tolerate sound teaching, but wanting to feel pleased by what they hear, they will accumulate for themselves teachers who will be fitting for what they want to hear (2 Tim 4:3).

Megachurches aren't filled up with people who were forced there by the preachers. Those preachers have positions because they have people who are there to support them. In the same way, most people don't choose churches based upon what truths are spoken but rather what truths are spoken in the way they want them spoken, which in our culture means "truth spoken winsomely." And what is winsome to a culture that loves the appeal? A culture where the feminine way of persusasion is exalted because it keeps the ego intact? These people seek to be discipled by people who will allow them to have their autonomy. 

As I argued in the last post, however, discipleship according to Jesus is a removal of autonomy. Jesus declared that one cannot even by His disciple unless the self is crucified. So as I declared that these preachers and teachers aren't actually preaching and teaching the Word of God, I will also declare that these seekers of discipleship aren't actually being discipled in the Word of God, even if the same words from the Bible are being used in their discipleship.

The Book of Proverbs has a lot to say concerning who we seek out as children when we are being discipled. Do we seek out peers or parents? Parents, mainly through the father who is also represented by the mother in the book, are the proper source of discipleship for a child who needs to be corrected. Peers, however, are those to whom foolish children are discipled because peers don't correct with authority. Peers have no authority. They convince by stroking the ego. They build the ego up. Peer pressure itself is this type of persuasion. It depends upon the exaltation of the ego by the individual. If an individual did not care about what others thought of them, it wouldn't be effective. As long as the ego remains, peer pressure works. But a child should seek out the guidance of Christian parents out of a godly fear and love, knowing that their authority is derived from God and by exercising it, they are replacing the self with Christ as Lord of that child's life.

In light of this, who do people choose to hang around? What do their cliques look like? Is it an atmosphere of peers where appeals and suggestions rule or an atmosphere of commands where qualified elders instruct with authority? Where you choose to spend your time and receive your discipleship is proof in the pudding regardless of what you may tell yourself. One who longs for ear-tickling will not much tolerate an environment of authoritative discipleship. He wants things suggested to him, not demanded of him, because this allows him to pick and choose what he will believe and do, thus retaining complete control over his life.

For this reason, ministry in the West has become more of a popularity contest where the preachers or teachers chosen by people are chosen based upon their likeability. And likeability is determined, as discussed in the last post, by how much the ego is stroked by that preacher or teacher, how much that preacher appeals rather than commands, whether he acknowledges that you are the mayor of You-town and respects/observes your rules when he is within your jurisdiction. 

When we realize that it is not really about what is said but the way it is said, we realize why so many of God's messengers were hated and killed by the congregations claiming to belong to God. Moses himself, a man God proved was sent by Him, was rejected by the people because they didn't like someone telling them what to do (Acts 7:35). They wanted leaders who would listen to them rather than leaders to whom they had to listen. 

This is why the appeal works so well in our culture and churches can grow so large amongst a people in rebellion. The desire to have mothers rule is so subtle and yet pervasive even among those who would repudiate the idea theoretically; but it is evidenced in what type of discipleship by the church one seeks out. 

It has been determined that children in a home absent of mother-care has the same chances of success as a home with both parents, but a home absent of father-care falls into great jeopardy. Boys may want their mothers instead of their fathers. Girls may want their mothers instead of their fathers. That's because they're children who don't yet know that they need their fathers in order to grow and survive in the world by his provision and protection. Mature men and women, however, seek out fathers, mentors, who will raise them as the images of God, as those who need to subject themselves to the ultimate authority if they are to become who God meant them to be. This does not mean that mothers are not needed. It just means that without the father, the mother can't get you there. Likewise, an environment that does not challenge autonomy with the authority of God's Word cannot disciple anyone under the Lordship of Christ.

Hence, the fathers of the church must do their due diligence to study the Word of God, not only for the accurate words to describe the message of God but for the accurate sound with which to describe it. Likewise, those who are under their care need to submit themselves to men who not only speak God's Word but speak it correctly. This means their ears will not be tickled, which is a Pauline phrase that refers to those who are seeking to have their autonomy, theological and lifestyle biases confirmed. They must not accumulate for themselves teachers that make them feel good, but teachers who actually preach the Word of God, as God intended it to be preached, as a means of producing good. 

The Effects of Femininity on Our Culture. Part II: Our Preaching

I mentioned last time the sermon illustration about the mother who took her kids to the zoo and they got too close to the lion enclosure, endangering themselves with the possibility of falling into it. The preacher wanted to present God's disposition toward us by likening him to that mother's appeal, "Boys, come give Momma a hug." The boys quickly ran from the enclosure and into the safety of their mother's arms. It's a very sweet story. It moved everyone in the assembly. It's a fantastic example of what a mother should do in that situation. And, as I said before, it is absolutely the opposite of what God does with us when we are in sin and the way His Word should be preached. We know this because we have more than enough examples in Scripture of God rebuking people both directly and through human agents. 

Unfortunately, most people are stirred emotionally to the point of convincing themselves that God does speak this way to us, and therefore, our preaching should mimic this mother, and in some cases, that may be true, but in most cases where sin is present, it is not. The mother's way of convincing others to do what is good is the way most people in the congregation should probably talk to one another about their sins, but pastors are fathers. It is not a father's way, and God is described most as Father, not mother. 

You see, a mother appeals. She does not command, as she is not made to be a commander. She's not the one in authority. When she does command, she should do so only to convey the father's authority but commanding is not fitting for her role and so she tends to appeal instead. The father's response would be very different. As I commented last time, it would have looked something like, "Hey Boys, Get your butts over here right now!" Both parents are afraid they would fall in but the father fears that if he leaves it up to the boys, they'll end up in the lion's mouth. He, therefore, commands with authority, as that is fitting to his role. If the kids are playing in the street with a car racing down it, he doesn't offer them sweeties to get out of the road. He orders them out of the road immediately. 

This is the difference of speaking with authority and speaking with an appeal. An appeal is really an attempt to convince someone to agree with what you want them to believe or do by pointing out a benefit to them so that they decide by their own authority to believe or do that thing. It's the mother in the grocery store who offers her kids a candy if they stop screaming rather than ordering them to stop screaming whether they see the personal benefit of it or not.

The problem with the appeal is not that it does not work when you want your kids to do something. The problem is that it leaves the ego intact. I am asking you, leaving the choice up to you as the sovereign lord of Selfville, and in doing so, not infringing upon the person's autonomy.

This is the central theme of the book, How to Make Friends and Influence People, I mentioned last time. Although written decades ago, it is just as relevant today because people are the same in every generation. The book recommends that if you want to be liked by people and have them listen to you, you must not bruise their ego in any way. They must be allowed to maintain their own lordship and not perceive you as attempting to exert any authority over them. Hence, we like people who appeal to us but hate people who speak authoritatively to us because we don't like anyone asserting control in our lives that was not granted by the supreme chancellor of the galactic self, us. 

This is all well and good and why most people who are liked appeal instead of command. The problem is that God isn't asking anyone. He's not appealing to us to obey Him in the sense that we appeal to someone so as to not infringe upon their self authority. Instead, God speaks as only God can speak, from authority. He is the Lord of all things and He speaks accordingly. This means that His Word is one that is spoken from authority and not from appeal. This is why the most common response to authority in Scripture is offense: "Who made this man a judge over us?" (Gen 19:9; Exod 2:14 // Acts 7:35; Mark 6:2-3).

In fact, the goal of the Word of God is to crucify the self of every person to whom it is proclaimed. This cannot happen if the self remains intact when God's Word is spoken with nothing but appeal. What this means is that if God's Word that is to be spoken from authority is instead spoken in appeal, it is not really accomplishing its goal, which is to expose the self-exaltation of every human to which it is speaking. And the reason why it is not accomplishing its goal is because it isn't the Word of God that is being preached.

I realize that might be a shock to the one who reads this but the Word of God, if spoken in appeal rather than in authority, isn't the Word of God. Let me explain. I can say the phrase, "Good morning" in a few different ways. I can say it in a friendly tone, a sarcastic tone, a quick and dismissive tone, an angry tone, etc., all communicating completely different things depending upon what tone is used. Yet, I've said the exact same phrase. Some languages even have different intonations for the same word that have different definitions altogether. We're all aware of emails or texts that we have either written or read by others where different tones were assigned to them, which gave the intent and result of that text or email a completely different flavor. This is because words are not soundless things. Half of what is said is communicated in the way it is said. That's what I mean that one who speaks the Word of God that is meant to be spoken from authority and is instead spoken in an appeal is no longer the Word of God. God doesn't ask people to do things and give them an option to dismiss them without catastrophic consequences. God is authority, and therefore, all that He speaks is authoritative. He's not asking for our kingly permission to rule over us. So when we speak in such a way so as to honor, not God's authority, but the authority of the autonomous individual, we are not speaking God's Word, even when it uses the identical grammar and vocabulary we read in the Bible. They're not technically different words that the preacher is preaching, but they are practically different words, phrases, messages. The people who hear a sermon about a particular command of Christ in an appeal are not hearing the same sermon as those who are sitting under a preacher who preaches that same command of Christ as a command.

This brings us to ask the question as to whether modern preachers in the West are actually preaching the Word of God. Are they being fathers or mothers? Are they commanding as God commands or appealing as a mother would so that people will be less offended and the preacher will be more liked by the hearer? 

This is why our culture hates fathers and loves mothers. There is no toxic femininity to our modern culture, just toxic masculinity, and this is often defined as a masculinity that asserts itself in authority over others. This would explain why so many modern preachers are liked by people who should actually hate them. People may disagree with you but as long as you leave their egos intact by communicating in appeals, you convince yourself that you're preaching the Word of God, as is your duty, but are still able to retain the likeability factor that so many of us crave as human beings. You're saying the same words that the Scripture says. Those words just aren't being said the same way that Scripture says them.

This is what I have often described as being a politician rather than a prophet. We are called, as preachers, to be prophets, not politicians. Politicians are running for office. They need to be liked. Hence, they appeal to the masses rather than command them. Prophets, however, have their office from God, not men. They don't need to be liked by anyone in order to have that office. They need to please God by representing Him and His commands accurately. Hence, they speak the Word of God in commands. "Thou shalt," "Thou shalt not," "Believe," "Repent," etc. They're not sharing suggestions. They're not giving you their personal testimonies of what has worked for them. Our postmodern generation loves it for you to share your personal experience. They see it as loving even if they don't adopt what's worked for you for themselves. You've tried a new product and now you want to lovingly let them know about this product that worked so well for you. You've merely offered them something they can reject and not feel inferior to you for not having received it. "This is just what I believe." "Jesus has really changed my life and you might want to consider Him." But that isn't what Christianity is. It's not something that works for you. It's not a product to share. You're not offering them a beverage. You are a messenger of the living God who has commanded all men everywhere to repent and give their allegiance to His Son because He has set a day to judge them in their sins and if they are not found in Christ, they will perish, period.

Megachurches tend to appeal. That's how they get so mega. Smaller churches tend to pander to their specific group by just saying the things that that group likes and is used to hearing without stepping on any toes. In other words, if sin is brought up at all, the preacher makes sure most, if not all, already agree that it is sin and that they already agree that they should be rebuked for it. But dare rebuke them for things they don't agree are sin and do so in a command rather than an appeal and you will quickly see the spiritual state of that congregation that has largely gone unnoticed in an effeminate/motherly environment of appeal. Egos remain on the throne where the mighty voice of the Lord commanding them to vacate His throne remains absent. 

Now, as I said before, there is nothing wrong with an appeal when that appeal is coming from a mother who is not speaking in the authority of the father. But the mother is unfaithful if she softens a father's commands to appeals when she communicates them to her children. The task of the preacher has the  goal of destroying human autonomy and taking every idea and person captive to Christ as Lord. Many preachers remain well liked and convince themselves they are preaching the Word of God so as to never really feel much commonality in their ministries with the prophets or apostles of old who were hated by so many within their own religious audience. They often come to the conclusion that perhaps they are just more likeable people than those ancient iconoclasts who were hated by everyone; but people are only likeable to those who are the stars of their own show when they become a part of the supporting cast and not those who want to cancel any further seasons of their program. People are still in rebellion against God and God hasn't changed, nor has His authoritative speech, and so the only culprit here is compromise. 

My appeal (pun intended), nay, my command, to every preacher, therefore, is the command of the Lord through the apostle, "I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach [imperative command] the word; be ready [imperative command] in season and out of season; reprove [imperative command], rebuke [imperative command], and summon [imperative command], with complete patience and teaching." (2 Tim 4:1-2)

The Great Commission is not, "Go into all nations, make disciples, baptizing and teaching them all that I suggested to you." We make disciples by teaching what Christ commanded, and we teach what Christ commanded by actually teaching them as commands and not suggestions. If we preach the words of God as the words of men then the Word of God has gone unspoken, and therefore, unheard.

(As an aside, I'm well aware that the word "appeal" is used in Scripture but it is not what I mean here. "Appeal" in Scripture has the idea of pleading with someone to put away his self exaltation and obey the Lordship of Christ. The command has already been given and now there is an appeal to those in disobedience to obey it since they will be placed under judgment if they do not. It is not a stroking of the ego by attempting to sell an idea to someone without suffering any personal damage to that relationship. Hence, even the appeals carry with them the authority of the command and the consequences for not obeying it).  

The Effects of Femininity on Our Culture, Part I: Appeal vs. Command in the Exercise of Fatherhood

 When I attended Moody, I perhaps heard the most emotionally stirring story in a sermon that I have ever heard. It was about a young woman who had brought her two boys to the zoo for an afternoon of fun. While in front of the lion exhibit, one of those open ones that were shielded by a pit of water and a fence, she glanced away for a moment only to look back and be filled with absolute terror at what she saw. While she had looked away, her two boys had slipped through the fence that separated the edge of the enclosure and were now playing on that edge. "If they slip," she thought, "because I scream out to them and stir them, they'll be killed for sure." So she got down on her knees and in a tender voice called out to them, "Boys, come give momma a hug." The boys quickly came away from the danger and ran safely into her arms.

It's a stirring story indeed. The preacher then argued that God is this way with us and we should be this way as well. 

The problem with this statement is that it's completely false. God is not this way with us, and neither should we be with others who are in the peril of sin. The real problem here is that the preacher was telling men to act like women by speaking the way women do, in an appeal rather than in a command.

I'm sure many of you have been shopping at a grocery store when a screaming child is demanding something from his mother and the mother attempts to bribe the kid by telling him that if he's good she'll buy him something. What she has done is made an appeal. She has attempted to communicate to him that it is in his best interest to obey her. He will get something out of it. So she can appeal to him, give him the choice as to whether he obeys, and hope for the best. In this scenario, the authority remains with the child. At no time does the mother take it away from him by commanding him to be quiet and behave because of no other reason than who she is as his mother.

Now, it's understandable why women appeal. They can probably command a small child but its much more difficult to do so with a bigger child who has not been raised to respect his mother for who she is rather than for what she can give him.

However, this would be the fault of the father, as long as she didn't get rid of the father or diminish his authority to her child. 

You see, fathers should not appeal to their children in sin. Fathers need to command because that's what God does to His children when they are in sin. 

Now, I don't mean that God does not display the benefits of following Him to His people and urge them to repent, even pleading with them sometimes. What I mean by "appeal" is that the ego is either stroked or at least uninjured by the person making the appeal in order to get a desired result. An idea is presented to a person in sin or error in such a way so as to pay homage to the person's autonomy rather than to draw out his rebellion by presenting the idea as non-negotiable, i.e., a command to which he is bound to obey.

The problem with this is that fathers need to represent God in His authority to their children and their goal is not to get their children to do what they want them to do, but to expose their rebellion so it can be addressed with the Word, repentance, and prayer. Rebellion is not exposed if no command is ever given. For this reason the command, not the appeal, is the tool of the true father that allows him to see where the work of the law and the gospel need to be applied. Where the mother may ask for a hug, the father, filled with the same terror as the mother, would yell out, "Boys, get your butts over here right now!" because they would not leave the decision up to the boys. The situation is too dangerous and there is no time to experiment with what bribe may work.

This runs completely contrary to our culture. In the book entitled, How to Make Friends and Influence People, the author makes an argument that could probably be summarized in one statement, "Don't bruise anyone's ego."

You see, people love people who appeal to them because it supports the idea that they are autonomous, i.e., they have the freedom to choose whatever they want to believe and do without accountability. They are the ones in control. There is nothing to trigger an angry reaction. There is no reason for the one to whom the appeal is made to dislike the one making it. We appeal to kings because they are kings, so the appeal itself confirms one's own view of himself.

The problem, unfortunately, for everyone who has to represent God is that part of that representation is conveying that God is king and demands to be obeyed whether the individual likes it or not. This is conveyed not only in particular wording but in the way that those words are spoken. If I teach my kids that God is the authority and their egos have exalted themselves as a replacement authority due to our sinful tendencies, but then do nothing but appeal to them when they need to be rebuked for their trespasses and sins, what I have done is undermine the explicit message with a much louder and far more potent implicit one. If, however, I demand that they repent as God does, I don't convey to them that they can decide to take God or leave Him. Even if they do reject Him, they reject the full message of His authority, that He is Lord, despite what I have conveyed to them rather than rejecting Him because of what I conveyed to them.

The goal of fatherhood is to represent God so that children understand who He is in relation to them, but a father who seeks to appease his children and appeal to them even when they are in sin conveys a God that has less authority than they do. Eventually, kids will grow up to realize that such a god is not worthy of their worship since their supreme being resides within.

The problem, however, is that we have a culture that does not like fathers because it does not like external authority because it does not like God who is the external authority. So we have been doused with the waters of the feminist ideal of men, a man who is frankly more like a woman in the way that he speaks. 

Anyone who does not fit this image of this man who is more in tune with his feminine side is considered arrogant, angry and mean, or in Christian circles, ungodly and un-Christlike. 

This fits well within our postmodern culture where truth is not something that can be fully known by the individual and therefore the fabric of our relationships must be sewn with how we make one another feel when we talk to one another about anything. If I feel offended, that means that you have exerted yourself over me and that does violence to who I am as regent over my life. As the Sodomites say to Lot and the Israelites to Moses, "Who made you a judge over us?" or as the Nazarenes said about Jesus, "Isn't this the son of the carpenter?" All were offended that anyone would bring a rebuke and stand in judgment over them. They were made to feel bad about themselves and felt judged, so they hated those who spoke in such ways to them.

If we are to reestablish a Christian culture in the church, however, our duty to represent God and His authority accurately in our families must be understood and practiced to the best of our abilities, but this first must be pictured in the church. That will be for our discussion next time.

The Pastoral Role and the General Life of the Church

 I think many people hear me say that pastors need to be focused on their role in ministry, which, according to the apostles of Jesus Christ, is making themselves "busy with prayer and the diaconate of the Word" (Acts 6:4), and think that means that I don't think that pastors have personal interactions with people of their congregation. That, of course, is absurd. 

All Christians everywhere fellowship. The issue is what one "exhausts" (1 Tim 5:17) himself doing. What is his role in the fellowship of the saints. As Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 12:4-31,

4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. 12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. 14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. 27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts. 

Each have a role to play, and the pastors/elders have their role which is clearly distinguished in Scripture with the fact that they are the instructors of the community. Anyone who speaks against this, speaks against the Word of God because of their personal theories and opinions that are not rooted in Scripture. Imagine someone arguing that those who need to fulfill the role of administrations must also heal or they aren't doing their job well, or those who speak tongues must also work miracles or their ministry is lacking. Imagine if someone said that a pilot must also serve the passengers as a steward or he's a bad pilot. Wouldn't that actually make him a bad pilot if he got up from the controls and served peanuts to hang out with the passengers instead? Isn't his service to them his actually flying the plane and making sure they get to their destination safely? Isn't that what his care for them looks like? The stewardess may seem a lot more friendly and likeable but she has a different role than he does.

The ear does not see, nor the eye hear, nor the foot speak. Pastors don't do what deacons do. Deacons don't do what pastors do. Deacons exhaust themselves finding out and filling physical needs of the church. Pastors find out and fill what God says are the spiritual needs of the church first and foremost, and after that, anything brought to them by the deacons or their personal interactions. 

Pastors counsel as one form of teaching, so they have plenty of interaction with those who seek counsel. But they are not politicians running from house to house in order to make sure their congregation still wants to pay their salary. If you think about it, a pastor isn't just going to your baseball games, banquets, and birthdays. He's going to everyone's baseball games, banquets and birthdays. Baby showers, graduations, dinner parties, etc. A pastor has to choose between exhausting himself, making himself busy, with prayer and teaching or with partying. 

Obviously, all pastors are going to be able to go to some things, but expecting them to go to everything is neither realistic nor even close to the biblical requirements God lays down for their ministry in Scripture. This is a far cry from arguing that pastors never fellowship or visit the sick or oversee the needs of people. Of course they do. But I have seen so many pastors just throw stuff together on Saturday night because they were busy with other things all week. What that does is create a spiritually weak church that has not been prayed for as much as they should have been and has been taught a superficial understanding of the text that will provide no defense of God's people from the demonic attacks they will face through the deception of the world.

Jesus only really hangs out with twelve men out of the thousands in His "congregation." Prophets seem to do the same. The apostles have a close group to them with whom they fellowship, but seem to not know most of the congregations to whom they are writing personally. This is likely the way it should be, as pastors need to mentor a small group of people so that he creates leaders for the next generation. But imagine having to go to every event of every single person in even a 70 member congregation. When exactly would this guy be studying and praying for everyone? And even if he fits it in, as many pastors do, fitting it in is not exhausting oneself or making oneself busy with prayer and Word, it's making oneself busy and exhausting oneself with leisure. 

The priests don't get to do the same things that others do. It would be wonderful to just spend all of our time hanging out with the people of God, but we do a disservice to them by doing so. Our great adversary is crouching down and ready to pounce upon their souls through deception, and it is only the truth of God that can thwart his intentions. We must study to show ourselves approved so that we can thwart him and allow the rest of the congregation the leisure, peace and prosperity that our hard work will bring. 

Again, pastors will always fellowship because fellowship is a part of the church but they will not neglect their duty to give the bulk of their time and energy to other things over prayer and the study and teaching of the Word of God.

The Roles of Elders and Deacons and the Confusion of the Two by the Modern American Church

 Expectations are everything when it comes to evaluating a person's performance. False expectations often lead to disappointment and resentment when those expectations are not met. Such is the case of the modern American church's expectations of their pastors.

 I remember sitting in the office of one of my friends who was a pastor when someone from the congregation came in and busied him with the task of calling around to find a tech to fix the air conditioner. When I first took the position of a pastor, my youth minister would argue with me that ministry was all about relationships. Having devoted my life to the teaching of the Word of God, and having seen what God does when I get out of the way, I vehemently disagreed and asked him whether he could apply his philosophy of ministry to Jesus, the prophets, or the apostles and still think that they were good pastors. I never got a response. In many ways, I'm still waiting for a response from those who think like he did. He went away to serve in a megachurch to do relational ministry and soon quit after that because of the trainwreck that such ideas create in the church. But more on that for another time. 

The word "pastor" means "shepherd" and the analogy Scripture gives to us is that between a shepherd and a flock of sheep. Countless expansions of this analogy have led to all sorts of distortions of what the Scripture is actually saying with this analogy, mainly because many people don't know how analogies work. I have heard that sheep are stupid and so are the people of God, shepherds have to know all of their sheep (a sentiment that is not necessarily true depending upon the size of the flock), shepherds nurse their sheep back to health one by one, etc. I always wanted to add that shepherds also fleece their sheep and often eat them as well. None of these are the point of the analogy being made in Scripture. The shepherd cares for the sheep by leading them through the Word of God, feeding them the Word of God, and protecting them with the Word of God. This can be done individually or collectively in a larger group. It can be done in person or by letter (as most of the shepherding of the entirety of the church throughout history has been by the Word of God through the writings of the apostles and prophets), which means it can be done in person or via any means that the Word can travel to the ears of God's people. Today, we utilize various forms of media: podcasts, books, Youtube, etc. as well as various forms of in person communication: preaching from the pulpit, teaching in small groups, fellowships, etc. 

It is not through a pastor petting the sheep that they grow, but through his continual commitment to study and teach the Word of God and pray for the flock. The Scripture knows all things common to man, so that even though Paul, for instance, may not know each individual personally, the Word is completely and without hindrance effective to equip the man of God for every good work with nothing lacking.

 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17).

Hence, a man who shows himself to be approved by God is a man who studies the Scriptures diligently.

Make every effort to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. (2 Tim 2:15).

We notice here that one who is an unashamed worker is one who handles the Word of Truth accurately in contrast to the context of speculations and word-wranglers that are merely attempting to justify their own opinions. Instead, the work of ministry is the work of studying the Word of God in order to teach it accurately.

This is why Paul charges Timothy with the sum of his ministry as follows:

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: proclaim the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into false narratives (2 Tim 4:1–4).

In 1 Timothy 5:17 states:

Οἱ καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι διπλῆς τιμῆς ἀξιούσθωσαν,* μάλιστα οἱ κοπιῶντες ἐν λόγῳ καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ. 

It is the well-ruling elders who are worthy of double honor, specifically speaking, those who exhaust themselves in Word and teaching.

Notice that the elders who are ruling well are the elders οἱ κοπιῶντες "who exhaust" their time and energy with the Word and teaching it. 

In fact, the only difference between a deacon and an elder is that the elder is to "be able to teach" (1 Tim 3:3). He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to refute those who contradict it (Titus 1:9).

This difference is vital for understanding the role of the shepherd versus the role of the deacon. 

In Acts 6, the widows of the Hellenized Jews are not being attended to properly. The apostles, i.e., those functioning as elders, state that "it is not appropriate for us to leave behind the Word of God in order to serve tables" (v. 4). So they choose seven men to be deacons, i.e., "servers" of the widows, to make sure the widows are attended to without the apostolic neglect of their own ministry. They conclude that the ministry of the apostles/elders is summed up as follows: ἡμεῖς δὲ ⸆ τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ διακονίᾳ τοῦ λόγου ⸀προσκαρτερήσομεν "But we will busy ourselves with the service of the Word and prayer (v. 4). The word service there is also the word for "service" but their service is one of the Word and prayer not the physically attending and relational ministry to widows. That is the job of the deacons who are tasked by the elders to make sure the congregation in physical need is supplied with what they need. The ministry/service of the apostles/elders is the service of spiritual needs that are met with the constant exhaustion and busying of the elders with the Word and prayer. 

In other words, relational ministry is the job of the deacon, not the elder. If the elder is busying himself with going around from house to house or attending every birthday party or baseball game then he isn't busying himself with the spiritual nourishment and protection of studying and teaching God's Word and prayer. The elder has a spiritual battle to fight against the forces of darkness in the lives of his flock and he, therefore, must engage the flock differently than the deacons. 

This is why relational ideas of ministry could never be applied to Moses who is placed over 2 million people. It could never be true of any of the prophets who were commanded to engage Israel, Judah, Nineveh, Egypt, etc. through the proclamation of God's Word. It could never be applied to the apostles who were over a congregation in Jerusalem of many thousands and were mainly absent from most subsequently established churches and yet shepherded them as a fellow elder (2 John 1:1; 1 Pet 5:1) through the medium of writing and ambassadors. Above all else, it cannot be said of Jesus who did not just have a flock of 12 apostles, but a congregation of up to 10,000. If your philosophy of ministry would make Jesus a bad shepherd, you have an unbiblical view of pastoral ministry. 

But all of them had a ministry of the Word to the flock of God that was not restricted to personal relationships. In fact, the elders are never told to go have personal relationships with everyone. Instead, they are told to shepherd the flock of God among them by ἐπισκοποῦντες "supervising" "exercising oversight" (1 Pet 5:2). In other words, he is an overseer, a supervisor, one who stands on the hill and looks over the sheep so he can see where the green pastures are as well as the cliffs and wolves ahead. He directs the sheep with the Word of God, he fights wolves with the Word of God, he fights the Lion with the Word and prayer for the flock. This is the duty of the elder. This is the duty of the shepherd. He has no other. Let me say that again, HE HAS NO OTHER. His task is clear. He must devote his life to the service of God's people by exhausting his time and energy with prayer and the study and teaching of God's Word. It is the sword of the Spirit, and by it, he fights an invisible battle for the minds and souls of Christ's people. 

He doesn't have time to neglect the diaconate of the Word and prayer to go to a graduation party, to hang out and drink all day, to attend every occasion so that he makes you feel good about him, that he cares and is present in order to punch in his time card and make you feel like you're getting your money's worth. He will answer to Christ as to whether he worked his butt off to understand the Word of God, to handle it accurately in order to show himself approved. 

The ministry of the deacon is the ministry of relationships. They, as ambassadors of the shepherds, must care for the flock on a more personal level. Hence, they do not need to spend all of their time studying and teaching the full counsel of the Word of God, but they do need to be men of wisdom who understand the gospel and are able to communicate it.

There has been a clear confusion of these roles in the American church today. Deacons are viewed as elders in many congregations, e.g., some Baptist congregations, and pastors are viewed as both deacons and elders rolled into one. It is no wonder that the typical pastor in America can't handle the Word of God in context half the time and instead preaches a message of the gospel over and over and over and over and over again. It's because they're deacons in shepherd's clothing. They're great at relational ministry. Because they're deacons. 

The church in America is largely being led by deacons. This is why I sometimes get the remark that I should go back and teach in a seminary instead of the church. It's because the pastor isn't viewed as a Bible scholar by the American church. He's viewed as a deacon and a Bible scholar is just some weird animal that belongs in another zoo. Bible scholars are those puffed-up arrogant people who just think they know everything. They're not my friendly neighborhood pastor who comes over for dinner and hugs my kids. Yet, the difference between a deacon and an elder is the fact that the elder is to be a Bible scholar and theologian, specifically, because his role is different than the deacon's role. His fight is different. He wages a spiritual war on your behalf so that you can rest in the peace of your own ministry to your family. His weapons are different. His ministry is different. "Word and prayer" is what he exhausts himself doing. This ensures that the sheep of God's flock will get more than just basic Christianity over and over again. It ensures that he will know what good green grass looks like and what is poisonous to consume. It ensures that Christians will grow into the depths of the Word of God because the foundation of the gospel that has been laid is now being built upon with solid teaching into a monumental temple of God. 

When Paul is leaving the Ephesian church he exhorts the elders to mimic his ministry. That ministry is described as follows:

Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church to come to him. And when they came to him, he said to them: “You yourselves know how I lived among you the whole time from the first day that I set foot in Asia, serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me through the plots of the Jews; how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from church gathering to church gathering, testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. And now, behold, I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by the Spirit, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me. But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again. Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears. And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.”  (Acts 20:17–32).

Paul is innocent of their blood because he did the ministry of the overseer/elder that was given to him, i.e., to proclaim the whole counsel of God. His whole ministry is summed up by this.

Understood rightly, the ministry of the Word can come through any means that can carry speech. In the ancient world, that meant that public speeches, private teachings, books, letters, ambassadors, etc. were all fair game (and, indeed, they were all used by the apostles to teach the church). In the modern day, that means all of these mediums plus blogs, Youtube, radio, the telephone, texting, podcasts, television, etc. are fair game. The way is open for shepherds to shepherd the flock in both old ways and in new ways because it is God through His Word that feeds and protects His people and what is necessary is simply for a medium to carry that Word to the ears of God's people in order for Him to make it effectual in their lives. 

The false expectation placed upon pastors to be deacons as well is just that, a false expectation. It isn't biblical. And the American church needs to start following the Bible in all things rather than just saying that they do. Right now, ministry roles are seen as so fluid that you would think that church leaders took their ques from a genderless, nonbinary professor. It's as though God wasn't clear about what the roles are between elders and deacons and so people feel free to do what they want with them and attend churches regardless of the consideration of its leadership structure. There is a way that seems right to a man but the end thereof are the ways of death. A pastor who neglects the diligent study of the Word of God to hang with the people may be a greatly loved politician but a horrible shepherd. 

We must always remember the One true Shepherd's pastoral/priestly prayer to God the Father before He became physically absent from the world and present only through Spirit and truth: "Sanctify them in the truth. Your Word is truth" (John 17:17). We cannot add nor take away from this ministry of the Word, not even to serve widows.