Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Rev. Garrett Buvinghausen's avatar

Discussion on the qualifications for the pastoral office is always needed. This article reminds me of George Henry Gerberding's "The Lutheran Pastor." Especially the part where he speaks of certain qualifications and qualities that ought to be sought in a man for the pastorate. He writes:

"We believe that God desires the most perfect types of manhood in this, the highest office in the world. There should be natural endowments and there should be spiritual endowments. Among the natural endowments we mention: First. A sound body. We do not believe in the idea of the old farmer, shared by many others, who had a number of boys, one of whom was feeble and of uncertain bodily health. ‘This one,’ he said, ‘does not seem to be fit for the farm or the workshop, so we'll make a preacher of him.’ This was not God’s idea in the selection of men for the Old Testament priesthood. (See Lev. xxi. 17-21.) We do not forget that this was an Old Testament requirement, and that the Old Testament priesthood was temporary and typical. But we also remember that the above passage is an expression of God’s will. It requires, indeed, a good bodily constitution to go through with the long and arduous strain of study required in a proper preparation for the ministry. How many break down during their college or seminary course, and are obliged to quit. The duties of the pastorate also are becoming more and more exacting, especially in the city. It requires a robust and vigorous body properly to meet and endure the demands made by a large city congregation. If a boy is puny, weak, and predisposed to disease; if his heart, lungs, eyes, or voice are weak, or his hearing dull, he should not study for the ministry.” (47-48)

Seeing as this was written and published in the early 1900s, certain contexts at that time are not as relevant for today, but most are. And with any earnest exploration in this avenue it would help for critics to keep in mind Gerberding's own expectation:

“We cannot expect that all that we have written will please every reader or critic. In a science where so much is left to individual judgment and counsel, it is but natural that opinions will differ. We believe that we have builded on the foundations of the Divine Word and the confessions of our Church. Judgments may and will vary as to the application of principles to particular cases. We trust that those who will differ from us here and there will bear this in mind.” (8-9)

You can find the full PDF of the book here: https://www.lutheranlibrary.org/510-gerberding-the-lutheran-pastor/

Expand full comment
Lance Klamer's avatar

Jarryd,

First, thank you for your service to our country in the United States Marines.

Thank you also for your writing and for your conversation and respectful dialogue. I completely agree that Luther would have likely allowed (especially humorous) criticism of his girth. And those who know me know well that my weight isn't something I'm particularly sensitive about, but is rather openly recognized as a struggle (fault!) to be dealt with, not defended. To be sure, the "woke" nonsense of celebrating one's obesity is absurd at best. The reason for my initial comment has very little to do with myself as a former seminarian and current pastor as much as it does many good men who I observed and knew (still know) well during my time at the seminary. While I witnessed a handful of seminarians of various shapes and sizes who probably shouldn't have successfully made it into or out of the seminary (and some didn't in regards to the latter) for various reasons, there were many fine and capable seminarians who are now fine, capable, and faithful pastors -- who happened to fall on the heavier side of the scale -- who are now also serving very well and proficiently (by God's grace, as with all pastors) as confessional Lutheran pastors in the parish. These are men who certainly shouldn't have been outright dismissed or weeded out as candidates for the seminary on the basis of their size. Should the problem be ignored or left to the wind? No. But I don't think it should outright disqualify a person for not fitting the mold of what a seminarian (pastor) should "look like".

I think the hypothetical "line" for what is acceptable and what is not (short of having a BMI cutoff of say 35 (30?) as part of the application process) is whether or not a seminarian (or pastor, for that matter) is able to competently and successfully complete his studies, duties, and tasks at the seminary (and in his personal/family life), including fieldwork training and the rigors of a serious and intense vicarage. This ought to verify whether he is fit for the parish or not. (Obviously if a seminary applicant was, for instance, unable to walk onto the seminary campus freely and without struggle, etc. due to obesity, that would be crossing the line for admittance to the seminary without first addressing the problem. I suppose the same would be true if a seminary applicant's breath reeked of alcohol.) All that being said, I would also absolutely support any in-seminary processes and programs (as you mentioned above) to address these issues, even if it was mandatory. But certainly not programs as physically rigorous as the military, etc.

And, yes, I obviously agree that gluttony is a grave sin. Albeit while it's likely that many/most obese men are guilty of such sin, it's obviously not limited to them either. There are certainly thin gluttons, as well...who may tend to get a "free pass" in their overindulgence in the eyes of most. But the sin is no less serious.

Again, thanks for the conversation and for your respectful and brotherly dialogue.

PAX.

Expand full comment
31 more comments...

No posts