Obesity? Obviously there's a limit within the realm of morbid obesity. But certainly obesity in general is something many fine and faithful LCMS pastors struggle with - myself included, to be honest. Just look at nearly any group picture of pastors gathered at an LCMS ordination, installation, or conference and that's obvious. And perhaps most notably...this criteria, strictly applied, would most certainly eliminate Luther himself from the pastoral office.
Right. And yet the vast majority of these men are "fine and faithful" pastors (my point above) who are carrying out the tasks of the Holy Ministry very capably. Obviously obesity is something that one (pastors included) ought to work towards overcoming. But you go too far in your legalistic disqualifying of men/candidates that is outside the bounds of Holy Scripture. I wouldn't exactly say that obese fellows like Luther or G.K. Chesterton (as a layman) weren't up to the monumental tasks they'd been given in Christendom. And so also with many of the fine and faithful pastors in the LCMS who share the same struggle with obesity. Strive to overcome it? Yes. Disqualify them? No.
I think you should read the article as it is. Obesity is an example of a proxy for diagnosing whether a candidate in seminary has the capabilities sought, which are self-control and work capacity. The article is aimed at identifying men in seminary who are physically and mentally capable of the tasks at hand.
Do you object to the idea that self-control, work capacity, and being physically and mentally capable for the role are appropriate considerations? If not, then are you simply objecting to obesity being relevant to assessing those considerations? Does this really have to do with your own struggles with obesity rather than objectively what is being messaged by the article?
I might add another consideration, if a man can't identify his own faults as faults and not only work on them but speak against them, perhaps he isn't fit to be a pastor.
Pastor, if you reread the section pertaining to self control, you can recall this sentence, "We can consider discussing processes in seminary to address some of these issues." I would hope that the obvious sin of gluttony would result in some prayerful searching and one-on-one mentorship during seminary to see if self control can be grown in a seminarian. As you mentioned, there should be some line at admission. But during seminary, if a man struggling with gluttony cannot display more self control for such an obvious issue, does that man have self control in enough measure for the pastoral office? I believe this is a question we should be asking of our seminarians. It's also a question all pastors should ask themselves (and all Christian men, but this article specifically deals with the seminarian processes).
Thank you for reading, and for commenting, Pastor. I'll comment below as well, but wanted to address this first comment as well.
First, I'm a little shocked that my biblically supported argument against gluttony and it's outcome is getting this much attention. I figured other aspects of the article would be under more fire. But I'm happy to converse on this topic.
You correctly note that there's a limit. So we can agree that a certain level of physical health is required. Where is the line? I'm not proposing you or any pastor have to meet the same physical requirements I did in Special Operations. But obviously there's a line, and that should be discussed and considered for applicants.
As for Luther, I don't really think that's a very strong argument. He also venerated Mary, and that would certainly remove him from consideration today. The discussion is around what we should be screening our applicants for today, not about who was fit for office in the past. If we are in the realm of fantasy, I could easily imagine Luther being willing to regard his own girth with some criticism. But I also find it hard to believe that a young Luther monk entering the Catholic priesthood was as heavy as his later years.
Part of the problem is that much of the messaging is from clergy to young men telling them that if they are interested in being a pastor to talk to the clergy. The selection of men to seek the pastoral office is not something we (as in the congregants who will call pastors) can leave to the clergy, at least not at this time. If the only people telling a man that he should consider being a pastor is his pastor and maybe some of the women around him, he probably isn't right for the job. Talking to his pastor is certainly something he should do, but perhaps even more importantly he should be speaking with the men in his congregation about it. The men of a congregation need to be actively involved in determining whether they have someone that shows promise to lead a congregation in the role of pastor.
Justin, I absolutely agree. Hidden between the lines of your comment is the need for all Christian men to strive for this example. Pastor must subscribe to the requirements clearly outlined for them in St. Paul's letters. All Christian men should prescribe to them. It's the only way to raise up young men, led by their Christian fathers, who are ready to meet the challenge and gifts of the pastoral office.
Labeling obese as unfit for pastoral office or any vocation betrays a gross ignorance that is of this world, and not God's.
Biology, physiology, medical and Biblical studies are called for, as well as discernment and an understanding of marketing and financial gain and false teachings behind "obesity" today.
Sandy, thank you for reading and responding. I appreciate the chance to respond to your concerns.
As I said before, I'm a little shocked and taken aback that this is what is causing so much umbrage, but I'm happy to continue to discuss. I'm prone to mistakes like any sinful man.
In Special Operations, you simply cannot be obese and meet the physical requirements of the job. It's possible our definitions differ, and if so I'd ask you to define "obese" for the good of these comments. But making a statement that being obese should't make one unfit for any vocation betrays a gross ignorance of vocations that require extremely high levels of physical fitness, as mine did.
Second, the Bible clearly states that gluttony is a sin. Proverbs 23:20-21, Proverbs 23:2, Psalm 78:18, 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, 1 Corinthians 10:31, Philippians 3:18-19, Romans 13:14, and so on. Job 15:27 specifically talks about wicked men filling his face and waist with fat. Obesity as I understand it is a byproduct, and a very obvious one, of a lack of self control. And physically obvious issues start to affect perception of blamelessness. If a pastor cannot control this appetite, does he struggle with other appetites?
I think it would be most helpful if you might define what you think obesity is. I hope that will clear up this misunderstanding. I hope also that you might understand that I simply want pastors to be up for the very difficult job they are entering. We cannot afford unprepared pastors, and we need to be honest with ourselves and our seminarians what being a pastor is like. While you're at it, are there any other points you disagree with in the article?
Thank you for another insightful and convicting article Jarryd. Do you have any thoughts about how we can encourage pastors back toward the necessary standards or how pastors who recognize a lack in themselves can try to do better?
Thank you Pastor! I really appreciate you reading the article and considering it. I had a call with a Pastor today, wherein he told me that upon accepting the call with his congregation and having the first council meeting, he asked the council "where do I need to improve." He continues to ask this question at each meeting. At first, they were hesitant. As he continued to ask, they opened up. Obviously in confidence and in love, they provided feedback to him, which allowed him to prayerfully consider the advice, and also get to better understand the needs of the congregation. I think this is a great model to follow, but requires a lot of humility. It also requires a congregation who has been properly taught by the pastor to know what a pastor ought to be doing.
I will continue to think about this question, but as I type this, we need pastors humble enough to continuously seek to improve, laymen who are well educated in the Christian faith to consider these things, and love and respect to work towards improvement, with faith in Christ Jesus and strength from the Holy Spirit.
Thank you for the response, I like the point about getting educated advice. Some have told me not to take lay feedback on sermons too seriously because they are not experts on homiletics. On the other hand, I consider a christian who has been hearing sermons for 30+ years to be an expert listener. I agree with you that it boils down to two important qualifications; humility before the people and especially toward God, knowing that our best work is still imperfect, and then of course providing earnest teaching, as you said, so that they know what is good and what is not. I know it is entirely possible to make an enjoyable infotainment Bible study or sermon and be proud of yourself so the temptation to avoid these necessary traits is real.
On the other side, I am encouraged by districts that are trying to improve the fraternity among pastors and foster accountability and brotherly criticism. Non-participation in winkles and other isolating behavior may not be a perfect indicator of a problem, but at the least it deprives the priesthood of the opportunity to sharpen one another.
Obesity has nothing to do with "self-control" and work capacity -- physical or mental. That is fact and based on centuries of evidence-based objective scientific and medical research. We are all God's creations and come in all shapes, sizes and body types; sizes that typically enlarge with age (at least among those who live the longest) , and cannot be changed long-term (and certainly not healthfully) by any actions on our part. To purport to know otherwise, or to blame someone who doesn't agree as struggling with obesity (being fat) is false doctrine. No, I'm not "excusing" fatness because I'm fat. I am a medical professional and genetically blessed with a smaller size. But I can no more eat my way to a BMI of 30 than someone who is naturally that size can starve themselves to be tiny.
There may be a medical condition responsible for obesity in some folks. Still, in the main, it's nearly always a lack of portion control, poor nutrition, and preference for a sedentary lifestyle. In the military, we had a few fat boys at the start of basic training. They were all at the required BMI and muscle composition after 8 weeks of training.
Sandy, again, I appreciate the comments and can respect your service as a medical professional. But basic physics states that if I expend 4000 calories and consume 3000 consistently, I will most certainly lose weight. I'm not saying this is healthy, as it depends on a variety of factors. I'm also not saying you need a 6 pack to be a pastor. But I am not yet convinced that you've made an argument that gluttony shouldn't be a disqualifier, or that a certain level pf physical fitness is required to fulfill pastoral duties. As I said before, though, I believe we are operating under two different definitions of obesity. Could you provide your understanding? And, are there any other points in the article you might agree or disagree with?
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)
It is a well know fact that Lutheran pastors for the most part have , as a child once said in.my child's Lutheran school , "Lutheran bellies" . This is obviously due to enjoying beer or like beverages too much . A small belly, okay , but a grossly obese one is not . They need to adorn the doctrine of Christ.
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Stereotypes and prejudices abound. It is not lack of control, failing to eat some special way or even what we do. We can control our body weight long term in the range of around 16 pounds, which does not define "obesity," nor does it have an appreciable impact on long term health. In point of fact, fat and thin do not eat differently to explain the differences in their body type and size. I eat considerably more than my spouse (who would be defined as obese with a rotund tummy since he was in his 20s) even though I'm a fraction of his size; he is also considerably more active than I am and stronger. He looks exactly like generations of his family photos. I look like mine. God made us all different. To equate basic training among young men is especially egregious. Aging is a main correlation with "obesity" as humans naturally get larger as we get older. You'll see that in generations of family photos. We have also gotten taller over the decades because we are healthier with better diets and protein, are less sickly and less likely to succumb to childhood illnesses of our grandparents. [Height is the second number in the BMI equation.] If you read the research, you'll also know what is the greatest determinant of how long we live -- many times more than lifestyle, diet, socioeconomic status, or health. Do you know what it is? Religious faith.
You cited your own anecdotal evidence, by the way. Mine is certainly anecdotal and very reliable: a sample of ~2,000 men in two intakes spaced a year apart. There were no fat boys at the end of basics.
Test all things and don't be conformed to this world or by the renewal of your mind. [1 Thess 5:21-22; Romans 12:2]
Critically examine 50 years of clinical and real world evidence (original sources, not marketing) and question your own assumptions and biases. Endless fallacies have been repeated. Go to the medical literature to see the definition of "obesity" used in public policy and to sell the massive profit-driven industry surrounding weight, wellness, fitness and diets. "Gluttony causing obesity" is a popular fallacy and used for evil against those genetically larger. Actual obesity has nothing to do with the endless yo-yo dieting that plagues our image-vain culture of people who gain and lose 10-20 pounds over and over again but doesn't give them a different body type, increase longevity, or change God's design for them. [Romans 2:1, Gal 6:3, Matt 23:12, Luke 14:11]
There has been no credible evidence presented to support the assertion that fat men are unfit to be pastors. Given the deadly threats against Christians and churches today, a pastor that packs might be valuable, but otherwise the only and best qualifications are still those in Scripture. [1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9]
Most congregations would vote for a Biblical man and amazing teacher and preacher, even if he was a disabled vet, had a bad kneeling knee, or was fat. It is painful to realize that some would actually condemn a pastoral candidate based on their own ignorance.
I fear this initiative is seriously going against Christ, as well as orthodox Lutheranism and LCMS. Pastors are divine calls conferred by God, not of men. As LCMS was founded upon, individual congregations hold the keys to selecting their pastors – not some centralized body, a Pope, or Synod bureaucrat and certainly not a church growth business looking to profit. [Study Walther and the Church, Church and Ministry, and Dr. Walther's First Presidential Address (1848).]
Sandy, I'm not going to look up a definition for obesity, especially if you in good faith are refusing to answer my questions or begin a reasonable dialogue. I'd ask that you read Rev. Garrett Buvinghausen's comment above, and maybe look at the book he quoted from and see if you have the same visceral reaction to a pastor in the early 1900s pleading for his congregations to send able bodies men into the seminaries. I never made the argument for a BMI index or anything of the sort. But, if for example a candidate that weighed 850 lbs and couldn't walk applied to the seminary, would you support his application? I'd ask that he work on that and resubmit, for the reasons I mention in the article. This is a minor point that is scripturally supported and is simply common sense, and I haven't really been swayed by your argument. However, I hope you understand that this article is written from a deep love of the LCMS, and the desire that my children will meet faithful LCMS spouses and, God willing, become pastors and pastor's wives. While this is possible with weak standards, it becomes much easier with the right men preaching, teaching, and administering the sacraments.
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.
Thank you for the discourse! I very much appreciate it, and I agree with everything you're saying. We certainly don't need the physical fitness levels of SOF, that would be a silly and non-biblical requirement that I wouldn't support. As you say, there needs to be a standard, and why not the standard that St. Paul set for us. At the core of this article is my love for the LCMS, and the desire for my children to find an LCMS spouse, and maybe even be pastors or pastor's wives one day. While that is certainly possible without strong pastors, it's so much easier with strong pastors. I want the LCMS to put forth their firstfruits to be shepherds of the flock, and for those in the role of assessing candidates, to faithfully uphold the biblical standard.
You should find yourself a good copy editor before nit picking the sh** out of our poor seminarians, who they, and their families sacrifice much to be there. I believe the quote is “Temple of the Holy Spirit” not template. Also you said “if a man cannot do these things his vacation lies elsewhere”. I believe the word you’re searching for was vocation. Maybe you should stick to special forces. Leave the writing to the theologians. Consider Ecclesiastes 7:16
Joan, thank you for pointing out these errors. I'll work with the editor to correct them. With a lot going on in our day jobs, we don't always catch everything before we post, and we will strive to do better next time.
As for the content of your comment, if you have an argument against what the article says I fail to see it. I'm not a pastor for a number of reasons, though I strive to hit the example that St. Paul outlined in 1 Timothy and Titus. I'm merely asking that, before we put a man in front of a congregation, that he meets the biblical standard. This isn't being overly righteous, it's asking that the biblical standard be met. Otherwise, why have standards at all? Regardless, the seminarians are already nitpicked to an extent in the current admissions process. At this point, you seem to be arguing against St. Paul's standards and the current admissions process. Should anyone be accepted? If not, then I'm simply arguing that the biblical standards be strictly enforced.
An illustration of the validity of decades of medical and scientific evidence is not anecdotal evidence. There are lots of diet anecdotes, but none that have proven long term benefits... or that by actions you can change the basic body type you were blessed with. Boot camp of select young men or focus on physical appearance is unrelated to one's worth as a spiritual pastor and shepherd to Jesus' children.
Logical fallacies are old tactics but weaken credibility, especially among listeners with discernment. The appeal to extremes, a form of extension fallacy and type of straw man argument, is a misuse of reductio ad absurdum.
This thread is a classic example of the dangers of being caught up in ideology and false beliefs, and of relying on our own understanding, rather than seeking God's wisdom, as God called us to do. False beliefs, typically drawn from fears, are warned against hundreds of times in the Bible.
Pop ideologies hide behind a lot of prejudices and uncharitable blame and judgments towards others: gluttony and lack of self control causes obesity, fat people are physically weak and inactive, fat people are not worthy to be pastors. None of these beliefs are grounded in truth, be it Biblical or scientific.
There is no denying the truth of God's word and what the Scripture calls for in the qualities for ministry:
1 Tim 3:1-7
Titus 1:5-9
In approving ourselves as the ministers of God, Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians of pureness, knowledge, longsuffering, kindness, love, honor, perfecting holiness…. In asking who is sufficient for the work of true ministry, Gerberding wrote extensively on the training Jesus gave his band of learners as he fitted them to be his witnesses and carry on his work. Physical prowess and attractive physique was not even mentioned.
Gerberding quoted:
'Tis not a cause of small import
The pastor's care demands,
But what might fill an angel's heart,
And filled a Saviour's hands.
Gerberding devoted an entire chapter to a pastor's call to ministry, writing that it is a divine call, not by men or through men, not an outward revelation, not determined by a Pope. The qualifications for ministry were laid down in the Epistles (again citing 1 Tim and Titus 1) which forbids any other reason than devotion to the Master.
“We grant that God, by an inner impulse and inspiration, breathes into some this disposition to undertake the ministry of the church without regard to dangers or difficulties; to which belongs also that mysterious impulse by which some are drawn to the study of theology. We also grant that this is absolutely required of the minister, that he be not lured either by ambition or avarice, or any other wicked desire, but that, induced by the pure love of God and the desire of edifying the church, he should accept the ecclesiastical office offered."
In asking, "Who ought to enter upon a course of study preparatory for the holy office?" Gerberding again said the answers are in Scripture, which will keep out unworthy and injurious men from ministry. "She will not in the future be scandalized and crippled by so many church-killers. She will more and more the salt of the earth, the light of the world, the joy of the whole earth. We are more and more convinced, as the years pass on, that the church has suffered more from an improper ministry than from any other cause. That, under God, her prosperity and power depend more on the right kind of a ministry than on anything else. If our Lutheran Church, with that clear, consistent, and complete system of Bible doctrine, which she has beyond any other church; with a spirit, a worship, and a life in harmony with her matchless doctrine, can be furnished with a sufficient number of the right kind of ministers, she will be a power that nothing can resist."
Gerberding spent 2 PARAGRAPHS talking about bodily constitution (which Rev. Buvinghausen quoted), but then went on for 21 PAGES to describe "EVEN MORE IMPORTANT NATURAL ENDOWMENTS" he said are necessary to be fit for the important office and work of ministry, as he wrote:
First and foremost, a strong, vigorous mind − must grapple and master the deepest and highest subjects of thought; be a student as long as he lives; think clearly and reason logically; make clear the loftiest truths; sound judgement; be educated.
Ours is an age of skeptical assault upon the very foundations of Christianity, in which unsanctified genius and scholarship massed in deadly hostility against every essential doctrine of our most holy faith, he said, in quoting Gotwald's lectures on the Augsburg Confession. At such a time especially, a talented and learned ministry is absolute necessity.
The third endowment for ministry is common sense – discernment, knowing how to adapt oneself to the various circumstances of life with calmness and patients; is cool, deliberate and firm; exercises good prudent, practical judgement. Again he quoted Gotwald's observation of the fools in theological seminaries and in ministry, sadly destitute of practical judgment and mother-sense.
"Old Dr. John Brown, of Aberdeen, once said to his theological students: “Young gentlemen, three things are necessary to the ministry: grace, learning, and common sense. If you have not grace, God can give it to you; if you have not learning, man can give it to you; but if you have not common sense, neither God nor man can give it to you, and you will be fools forever.”
The fourth endowment very important for a pastor is moral courage – resolution of character, moral backbone, strong conviction, perseverance, not shrink from opposition; he needs to be a good soldier to endure hardness and be ready to suffer. He must be a hero of faith. He is called to labor, but it's different from those of other callings, he wrote. The responsibilities of a pastor's calling is to apply themselves in their study and driven to feed souls and not fritter away precious hours and opportunities to help those who need them, not be idlers.
The final important endowment is a tender and sympathetic spirit – compassionate, be touched with a feeling of others' infirmities; a refined, delicate nature that rejoices with those that rejoice and weep with those that weep. "Let the cold, selfish and hard-hearted remain out of the sacred office. They are not fit for it…They are not called."
While Gerberding looked at the more important qualifications for pastoral office, he cautioned that "we cannot lay down an absolute rule. God can use and has used men feeble in body, of mediocre talent and attainment, of a high order of earnestness, consecration and application." While these are exceptions, the church in selecting and encouraging youth to prepare for this high calling must adhere to the standard in the Divine Word.
Finally, he came down to the more important SPIRITUAL qualifications, he said. First, a living, deep, and fervent piety− faith, trusting, resting, abiding, peace-bringing faith in a Savior who has forgiven him all his sin; inner peace; heart must be so warm with personal love to the Savior. He quoted Gregory Nazianzen: “We must first be pure, then purify others; be taught, then teach others; become light, and then enlighten others; draw near to God ourselves, and then draw others; sanctify ourselves, and then inake others holy.”
"Something further is needed," Gerberding wrote. "What is it? It is a clear and heartfelt conviction that it is God’s will that he should serve Him in this holy office…this true inner call is more than a mere preference of the profession of the ministry."
"We go further. There may be not only an intellectual preference, not merely a conclusion, a judgment, that the ministry is a desirable profession; but there may be also an earnest desire to become a minister. One may feel moved and drawn toward this work. This feeling and desire may become so strong that it takes possession of the whole man….He has a right to believe that he has the preparatory or inner call. He may confidently and joyfully enter upon a course of preparation."
"And let the church again lay the proper stress on the inner, preparatory call. Then will there be better days for our Zion."
Gerberding also devoted an entire chapter on the qualifications for ministry of Personal Character – things like "scrupulously truthful… honesty…not engage in any secular business or thought of money-making…grace of humility…dignity…gentle manners…temperance and moderation…avoid the appearance of evil…wear neat modest dress of a minister…the husband of one wife… the highest type of Christian gentleman. "A man of gentle soul and manners, of the highest justice, of simplicity in character and taste, of a collected spirit."
He devoted another chapter on need to be a lifelong student, foremost in the Divine Word and earnestly recommended all pastors study the four books on the spiritual qualifications for fighting for the faith that he listed on page 187.
Sandy, this is a really great, long comment. I wish you would post this yourself, as it's a really nice summation of what I think is a great publication. I think we are on the same side here. If you got the idea that I think the body is the most important thing in reviewing men for application to the Seminary, then I may need to edit the article. Like Gerberding, though likely not as eloquently, I simply mean that Pastors need to be up to the very real physical demands that being a pastor will put on their bodies. I don't think it's the most important thing, but should be at the very least considered. I certainly don't care about and didn't outline a prowess or aesthetic. But we should not lie to our Seminarians. What they are going to undertake will take every bit of them. I want them to succeed, and I want our congregations to flourish. I want a standard that will produce excellent pastors every time. We already have a standard. Men do get turned away. I believe the data supports that this standard has been weakly enforced. Again, I think there is much we agree on here, and I encourage you again to post this as a full article. Thank you for continuing the conversation!
Obesity? Obviously there's a limit within the realm of morbid obesity. But certainly obesity in general is something many fine and faithful LCMS pastors struggle with - myself included, to be honest. Just look at nearly any group picture of pastors gathered at an LCMS ordination, installation, or conference and that's obvious. And perhaps most notably...this criteria, strictly applied, would most certainly eliminate Luther himself from the pastoral office.
This comment is why I posted my comment.
Right. And yet the vast majority of these men are "fine and faithful" pastors (my point above) who are carrying out the tasks of the Holy Ministry very capably. Obviously obesity is something that one (pastors included) ought to work towards overcoming. But you go too far in your legalistic disqualifying of men/candidates that is outside the bounds of Holy Scripture. I wouldn't exactly say that obese fellows like Luther or G.K. Chesterton (as a layman) weren't up to the monumental tasks they'd been given in Christendom. And so also with many of the fine and faithful pastors in the LCMS who share the same struggle with obesity. Strive to overcome it? Yes. Disqualify them? No.
There is a great deal of difference between a fat, mature pastor and a fat seminarian or newly ordained man.
I think you should read the article as it is. Obesity is an example of a proxy for diagnosing whether a candidate in seminary has the capabilities sought, which are self-control and work capacity. The article is aimed at identifying men in seminary who are physically and mentally capable of the tasks at hand.
Do you object to the idea that self-control, work capacity, and being physically and mentally capable for the role are appropriate considerations? If not, then are you simply objecting to obesity being relevant to assessing those considerations? Does this really have to do with your own struggles with obesity rather than objectively what is being messaged by the article?
I might add another consideration, if a man can't identify his own faults as faults and not only work on them but speak against them, perhaps he isn't fit to be a pastor.
Thank you Justin!
Pastor, if you reread the section pertaining to self control, you can recall this sentence, "We can consider discussing processes in seminary to address some of these issues." I would hope that the obvious sin of gluttony would result in some prayerful searching and one-on-one mentorship during seminary to see if self control can be grown in a seminarian. As you mentioned, there should be some line at admission. But during seminary, if a man struggling with gluttony cannot display more self control for such an obvious issue, does that man have self control in enough measure for the pastoral office? I believe this is a question we should be asking of our seminarians. It's also a question all pastors should ask themselves (and all Christian men, but this article specifically deals with the seminarian processes).
Thank you for reading, and for commenting, Pastor. I'll comment below as well, but wanted to address this first comment as well.
First, I'm a little shocked that my biblically supported argument against gluttony and it's outcome is getting this much attention. I figured other aspects of the article would be under more fire. But I'm happy to converse on this topic.
You correctly note that there's a limit. So we can agree that a certain level of physical health is required. Where is the line? I'm not proposing you or any pastor have to meet the same physical requirements I did in Special Operations. But obviously there's a line, and that should be discussed and considered for applicants.
As for Luther, I don't really think that's a very strong argument. He also venerated Mary, and that would certainly remove him from consideration today. The discussion is around what we should be screening our applicants for today, not about who was fit for office in the past. If we are in the realm of fantasy, I could easily imagine Luther being willing to regard his own girth with some criticism. But I also find it hard to believe that a young Luther monk entering the Catholic priesthood was as heavy as his later years.
Part of the problem is that much of the messaging is from clergy to young men telling them that if they are interested in being a pastor to talk to the clergy. The selection of men to seek the pastoral office is not something we (as in the congregants who will call pastors) can leave to the clergy, at least not at this time. If the only people telling a man that he should consider being a pastor is his pastor and maybe some of the women around him, he probably isn't right for the job. Talking to his pastor is certainly something he should do, but perhaps even more importantly he should be speaking with the men in his congregation about it. The men of a congregation need to be actively involved in determining whether they have someone that shows promise to lead a congregation in the role of pastor.
Justin, I absolutely agree. Hidden between the lines of your comment is the need for all Christian men to strive for this example. Pastor must subscribe to the requirements clearly outlined for them in St. Paul's letters. All Christian men should prescribe to them. It's the only way to raise up young men, led by their Christian fathers, who are ready to meet the challenge and gifts of the pastoral office.
Labeling obese as unfit for pastoral office or any vocation betrays a gross ignorance that is of this world, and not God's.
Biology, physiology, medical and Biblical studies are called for, as well as discernment and an understanding of marketing and financial gain and false teachings behind "obesity" today.
Sandy, thank you for reading and responding. I appreciate the chance to respond to your concerns.
As I said before, I'm a little shocked and taken aback that this is what is causing so much umbrage, but I'm happy to continue to discuss. I'm prone to mistakes like any sinful man.
First, I'm struggling to understand your logic of disallowing obesity for "any vocation." The Marine Corps height and weight standards are public: https://www.fitness.marines.mil/BCP-Standards-Copy/
In Special Operations, you simply cannot be obese and meet the physical requirements of the job. It's possible our definitions differ, and if so I'd ask you to define "obese" for the good of these comments. But making a statement that being obese should't make one unfit for any vocation betrays a gross ignorance of vocations that require extremely high levels of physical fitness, as mine did.
Second, the Bible clearly states that gluttony is a sin. Proverbs 23:20-21, Proverbs 23:2, Psalm 78:18, 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, 1 Corinthians 10:31, Philippians 3:18-19, Romans 13:14, and so on. Job 15:27 specifically talks about wicked men filling his face and waist with fat. Obesity as I understand it is a byproduct, and a very obvious one, of a lack of self control. And physically obvious issues start to affect perception of blamelessness. If a pastor cannot control this appetite, does he struggle with other appetites?
I think it would be most helpful if you might define what you think obesity is. I hope that will clear up this misunderstanding. I hope also that you might understand that I simply want pastors to be up for the very difficult job they are entering. We cannot afford unprepared pastors, and we need to be honest with ourselves and our seminarians what being a pastor is like. While you're at it, are there any other points you disagree with in the article?
Thank you for another insightful and convicting article Jarryd. Do you have any thoughts about how we can encourage pastors back toward the necessary standards or how pastors who recognize a lack in themselves can try to do better?
Thank you Pastor! I really appreciate you reading the article and considering it. I had a call with a Pastor today, wherein he told me that upon accepting the call with his congregation and having the first council meeting, he asked the council "where do I need to improve." He continues to ask this question at each meeting. At first, they were hesitant. As he continued to ask, they opened up. Obviously in confidence and in love, they provided feedback to him, which allowed him to prayerfully consider the advice, and also get to better understand the needs of the congregation. I think this is a great model to follow, but requires a lot of humility. It also requires a congregation who has been properly taught by the pastor to know what a pastor ought to be doing.
I will continue to think about this question, but as I type this, we need pastors humble enough to continuously seek to improve, laymen who are well educated in the Christian faith to consider these things, and love and respect to work towards improvement, with faith in Christ Jesus and strength from the Holy Spirit.
Thank you for the response, I like the point about getting educated advice. Some have told me not to take lay feedback on sermons too seriously because they are not experts on homiletics. On the other hand, I consider a christian who has been hearing sermons for 30+ years to be an expert listener. I agree with you that it boils down to two important qualifications; humility before the people and especially toward God, knowing that our best work is still imperfect, and then of course providing earnest teaching, as you said, so that they know what is good and what is not. I know it is entirely possible to make an enjoyable infotainment Bible study or sermon and be proud of yourself so the temptation to avoid these necessary traits is real.
On the other side, I am encouraged by districts that are trying to improve the fraternity among pastors and foster accountability and brotherly criticism. Non-participation in winkles and other isolating behavior may not be a perfect indicator of a problem, but at the least it deprives the priesthood of the opportunity to sharpen one another.
Obesity has nothing to do with "self-control" and work capacity -- physical or mental. That is fact and based on centuries of evidence-based objective scientific and medical research. We are all God's creations and come in all shapes, sizes and body types; sizes that typically enlarge with age (at least among those who live the longest) , and cannot be changed long-term (and certainly not healthfully) by any actions on our part. To purport to know otherwise, or to blame someone who doesn't agree as struggling with obesity (being fat) is false doctrine. No, I'm not "excusing" fatness because I'm fat. I am a medical professional and genetically blessed with a smaller size. But I can no more eat my way to a BMI of 30 than someone who is naturally that size can starve themselves to be tiny.
There may be a medical condition responsible for obesity in some folks. Still, in the main, it's nearly always a lack of portion control, poor nutrition, and preference for a sedentary lifestyle. In the military, we had a few fat boys at the start of basic training. They were all at the required BMI and muscle composition after 8 weeks of training.
Sandy, again, I appreciate the comments and can respect your service as a medical professional. But basic physics states that if I expend 4000 calories and consume 3000 consistently, I will most certainly lose weight. I'm not saying this is healthy, as it depends on a variety of factors. I'm also not saying you need a 6 pack to be a pastor. But I am not yet convinced that you've made an argument that gluttony shouldn't be a disqualifier, or that a certain level pf physical fitness is required to fulfill pastoral duties. As I said before, though, I believe we are operating under two different definitions of obesity. Could you provide your understanding? And, are there any other points in the article you might agree or disagree with?
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/
This is a really excellent comment, and why I enjoy posting on Ad Crucem. I will read this book, and thank you for the comment!
It is a well know fact that Lutheran pastors for the most part have , as a child once said in.my child's Lutheran school , "Lutheran bellies" . This is obviously due to enjoying beer or like beverages too much . A small belly, okay , but a grossly obese one is not . They need to adorn the doctrine of Christ.
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Stereotypes and prejudices abound. It is not lack of control, failing to eat some special way or even what we do. We can control our body weight long term in the range of around 16 pounds, which does not define "obesity," nor does it have an appreciable impact on long term health. In point of fact, fat and thin do not eat differently to explain the differences in their body type and size. I eat considerably more than my spouse (who would be defined as obese with a rotund tummy since he was in his 20s) even though I'm a fraction of his size; he is also considerably more active than I am and stronger. He looks exactly like generations of his family photos. I look like mine. God made us all different. To equate basic training among young men is especially egregious. Aging is a main correlation with "obesity" as humans naturally get larger as we get older. You'll see that in generations of family photos. We have also gotten taller over the decades because we are healthier with better diets and protein, are less sickly and less likely to succumb to childhood illnesses of our grandparents. [Height is the second number in the BMI equation.] If you read the research, you'll also know what is the greatest determinant of how long we live -- many times more than lifestyle, diet, socioeconomic status, or health. Do you know what it is? Religious faith.
You cited your own anecdotal evidence, by the way. Mine is certainly anecdotal and very reliable: a sample of ~2,000 men in two intakes spaced a year apart. There were no fat boys at the end of basics.
What does the source of all Truth say?
Test all things and don't be conformed to this world or by the renewal of your mind. [1 Thess 5:21-22; Romans 12:2]
Critically examine 50 years of clinical and real world evidence (original sources, not marketing) and question your own assumptions and biases. Endless fallacies have been repeated. Go to the medical literature to see the definition of "obesity" used in public policy and to sell the massive profit-driven industry surrounding weight, wellness, fitness and diets. "Gluttony causing obesity" is a popular fallacy and used for evil against those genetically larger. Actual obesity has nothing to do with the endless yo-yo dieting that plagues our image-vain culture of people who gain and lose 10-20 pounds over and over again but doesn't give them a different body type, increase longevity, or change God's design for them. [Romans 2:1, Gal 6:3, Matt 23:12, Luke 14:11]
There has been no credible evidence presented to support the assertion that fat men are unfit to be pastors. Given the deadly threats against Christians and churches today, a pastor that packs might be valuable, but otherwise the only and best qualifications are still those in Scripture. [1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9]
Most congregations would vote for a Biblical man and amazing teacher and preacher, even if he was a disabled vet, had a bad kneeling knee, or was fat. It is painful to realize that some would actually condemn a pastoral candidate based on their own ignorance.
I fear this initiative is seriously going against Christ, as well as orthodox Lutheranism and LCMS. Pastors are divine calls conferred by God, not of men. As LCMS was founded upon, individual congregations hold the keys to selecting their pastors – not some centralized body, a Pope, or Synod bureaucrat and certainly not a church growth business looking to profit. [Study Walther and the Church, Church and Ministry, and Dr. Walther's First Presidential Address (1848).]
Sandy, I'm not going to look up a definition for obesity, especially if you in good faith are refusing to answer my questions or begin a reasonable dialogue. I'd ask that you read Rev. Garrett Buvinghausen's comment above, and maybe look at the book he quoted from and see if you have the same visceral reaction to a pastor in the early 1900s pleading for his congregations to send able bodies men into the seminaries. I never made the argument for a BMI index or anything of the sort. But, if for example a candidate that weighed 850 lbs and couldn't walk applied to the seminary, would you support his application? I'd ask that he work on that and resubmit, for the reasons I mention in the article. This is a minor point that is scripturally supported and is simply common sense, and I haven't really been swayed by your argument. However, I hope you understand that this article is written from a deep love of the LCMS, and the desire that my children will meet faithful LCMS spouses and, God willing, become pastors and pastor's wives. While this is possible with weak standards, it becomes much easier with the right men preaching, teaching, and administering the sacraments.
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.
Pastor,
Thank you for the discourse! I very much appreciate it, and I agree with everything you're saying. We certainly don't need the physical fitness levels of SOF, that would be a silly and non-biblical requirement that I wouldn't support. As you say, there needs to be a standard, and why not the standard that St. Paul set for us. At the core of this article is my love for the LCMS, and the desire for my children to find an LCMS spouse, and maybe even be pastors or pastor's wives one day. While that is certainly possible without strong pastors, it's so much easier with strong pastors. I want the LCMS to put forth their firstfruits to be shepherds of the flock, and for those in the role of assessing candidates, to faithfully uphold the biblical standard.
I think it a priority to eradicate this disgusting, damnable sin
Who wants to work in such an environment?
https://www.lutheranforum.com/blog/mobbing-systemic-spiritual-abuse-in-the-lcms
You should find yourself a good copy editor before nit picking the sh** out of our poor seminarians, who they, and their families sacrifice much to be there. I believe the quote is “Temple of the Holy Spirit” not template. Also you said “if a man cannot do these things his vacation lies elsewhere”. I believe the word you’re searching for was vocation. Maybe you should stick to special forces. Leave the writing to the theologians. Consider Ecclesiastes 7:16
Joan, thank you for pointing out these errors. I'll work with the editor to correct them. With a lot going on in our day jobs, we don't always catch everything before we post, and we will strive to do better next time.
As for the content of your comment, if you have an argument against what the article says I fail to see it. I'm not a pastor for a number of reasons, though I strive to hit the example that St. Paul outlined in 1 Timothy and Titus. I'm merely asking that, before we put a man in front of a congregation, that he meets the biblical standard. This isn't being overly righteous, it's asking that the biblical standard be met. Otherwise, why have standards at all? Regardless, the seminarians are already nitpicked to an extent in the current admissions process. At this point, you seem to be arguing against St. Paul's standards and the current admissions process. Should anyone be accepted? If not, then I'm simply arguing that the biblical standards be strictly enforced.
An illustration of the validity of decades of medical and scientific evidence is not anecdotal evidence. There are lots of diet anecdotes, but none that have proven long term benefits... or that by actions you can change the basic body type you were blessed with. Boot camp of select young men or focus on physical appearance is unrelated to one's worth as a spiritual pastor and shepherd to Jesus' children.
Logical fallacies are old tactics but weaken credibility, especially among listeners with discernment. The appeal to extremes, a form of extension fallacy and type of straw man argument, is a misuse of reductio ad absurdum.
This thread is a classic example of the dangers of being caught up in ideology and false beliefs, and of relying on our own understanding, rather than seeking God's wisdom, as God called us to do. False beliefs, typically drawn from fears, are warned against hundreds of times in the Bible.
Pop ideologies hide behind a lot of prejudices and uncharitable blame and judgments towards others: gluttony and lack of self control causes obesity, fat people are physically weak and inactive, fat people are not worthy to be pastors. None of these beliefs are grounded in truth, be it Biblical or scientific.
There is no denying the truth of God's word and what the Scripture calls for in the qualities for ministry:
1 Tim 3:1-7
Titus 1:5-9
In approving ourselves as the ministers of God, Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians of pureness, knowledge, longsuffering, kindness, love, honor, perfecting holiness…. In asking who is sufficient for the work of true ministry, Gerberding wrote extensively on the training Jesus gave his band of learners as he fitted them to be his witnesses and carry on his work. Physical prowess and attractive physique was not even mentioned.
Gerberding quoted:
'Tis not a cause of small import
The pastor's care demands,
But what might fill an angel's heart,
And filled a Saviour's hands.
Gerberding devoted an entire chapter to a pastor's call to ministry, writing that it is a divine call, not by men or through men, not an outward revelation, not determined by a Pope. The qualifications for ministry were laid down in the Epistles (again citing 1 Tim and Titus 1) which forbids any other reason than devotion to the Master.
“We grant that God, by an inner impulse and inspiration, breathes into some this disposition to undertake the ministry of the church without regard to dangers or difficulties; to which belongs also that mysterious impulse by which some are drawn to the study of theology. We also grant that this is absolutely required of the minister, that he be not lured either by ambition or avarice, or any other wicked desire, but that, induced by the pure love of God and the desire of edifying the church, he should accept the ecclesiastical office offered."
In asking, "Who ought to enter upon a course of study preparatory for the holy office?" Gerberding again said the answers are in Scripture, which will keep out unworthy and injurious men from ministry. "She will not in the future be scandalized and crippled by so many church-killers. She will more and more the salt of the earth, the light of the world, the joy of the whole earth. We are more and more convinced, as the years pass on, that the church has suffered more from an improper ministry than from any other cause. That, under God, her prosperity and power depend more on the right kind of a ministry than on anything else. If our Lutheran Church, with that clear, consistent, and complete system of Bible doctrine, which she has beyond any other church; with a spirit, a worship, and a life in harmony with her matchless doctrine, can be furnished with a sufficient number of the right kind of ministers, she will be a power that nothing can resist."
Gerberding spent 2 PARAGRAPHS talking about bodily constitution (which Rev. Buvinghausen quoted), but then went on for 21 PAGES to describe "EVEN MORE IMPORTANT NATURAL ENDOWMENTS" he said are necessary to be fit for the important office and work of ministry, as he wrote:
First and foremost, a strong, vigorous mind − must grapple and master the deepest and highest subjects of thought; be a student as long as he lives; think clearly and reason logically; make clear the loftiest truths; sound judgement; be educated.
Ours is an age of skeptical assault upon the very foundations of Christianity, in which unsanctified genius and scholarship massed in deadly hostility against every essential doctrine of our most holy faith, he said, in quoting Gotwald's lectures on the Augsburg Confession. At such a time especially, a talented and learned ministry is absolute necessity.
The third endowment for ministry is common sense – discernment, knowing how to adapt oneself to the various circumstances of life with calmness and patients; is cool, deliberate and firm; exercises good prudent, practical judgement. Again he quoted Gotwald's observation of the fools in theological seminaries and in ministry, sadly destitute of practical judgment and mother-sense.
"Old Dr. John Brown, of Aberdeen, once said to his theological students: “Young gentlemen, three things are necessary to the ministry: grace, learning, and common sense. If you have not grace, God can give it to you; if you have not learning, man can give it to you; but if you have not common sense, neither God nor man can give it to you, and you will be fools forever.”
The fourth endowment very important for a pastor is moral courage – resolution of character, moral backbone, strong conviction, perseverance, not shrink from opposition; he needs to be a good soldier to endure hardness and be ready to suffer. He must be a hero of faith. He is called to labor, but it's different from those of other callings, he wrote. The responsibilities of a pastor's calling is to apply themselves in their study and driven to feed souls and not fritter away precious hours and opportunities to help those who need them, not be idlers.
The final important endowment is a tender and sympathetic spirit – compassionate, be touched with a feeling of others' infirmities; a refined, delicate nature that rejoices with those that rejoice and weep with those that weep. "Let the cold, selfish and hard-hearted remain out of the sacred office. They are not fit for it…They are not called."
While Gerberding looked at the more important qualifications for pastoral office, he cautioned that "we cannot lay down an absolute rule. God can use and has used men feeble in body, of mediocre talent and attainment, of a high order of earnestness, consecration and application." While these are exceptions, the church in selecting and encouraging youth to prepare for this high calling must adhere to the standard in the Divine Word.
Finally, he came down to the more important SPIRITUAL qualifications, he said. First, a living, deep, and fervent piety− faith, trusting, resting, abiding, peace-bringing faith in a Savior who has forgiven him all his sin; inner peace; heart must be so warm with personal love to the Savior. He quoted Gregory Nazianzen: “We must first be pure, then purify others; be taught, then teach others; become light, and then enlighten others; draw near to God ourselves, and then draw others; sanctify ourselves, and then inake others holy.”
"Something further is needed," Gerberding wrote. "What is it? It is a clear and heartfelt conviction that it is God’s will that he should serve Him in this holy office…this true inner call is more than a mere preference of the profession of the ministry."
"We go further. There may be not only an intellectual preference, not merely a conclusion, a judgment, that the ministry is a desirable profession; but there may be also an earnest desire to become a minister. One may feel moved and drawn toward this work. This feeling and desire may become so strong that it takes possession of the whole man….He has a right to believe that he has the preparatory or inner call. He may confidently and joyfully enter upon a course of preparation."
"And let the church again lay the proper stress on the inner, preparatory call. Then will there be better days for our Zion."
Gerberding also devoted an entire chapter on the qualifications for ministry of Personal Character – things like "scrupulously truthful… honesty…not engage in any secular business or thought of money-making…grace of humility…dignity…gentle manners…temperance and moderation…avoid the appearance of evil…wear neat modest dress of a minister…the husband of one wife… the highest type of Christian gentleman. "A man of gentle soul and manners, of the highest justice, of simplicity in character and taste, of a collected spirit."
He devoted another chapter on need to be a lifelong student, foremost in the Divine Word and earnestly recommended all pastors study the four books on the spiritual qualifications for fighting for the faith that he listed on page 187.
Amen.
Sandy, this is a really great, long comment. I wish you would post this yourself, as it's a really nice summation of what I think is a great publication. I think we are on the same side here. If you got the idea that I think the body is the most important thing in reviewing men for application to the Seminary, then I may need to edit the article. Like Gerberding, though likely not as eloquently, I simply mean that Pastors need to be up to the very real physical demands that being a pastor will put on their bodies. I don't think it's the most important thing, but should be at the very least considered. I certainly don't care about and didn't outline a prowess or aesthetic. But we should not lie to our Seminarians. What they are going to undertake will take every bit of them. I want them to succeed, and I want our congregations to flourish. I want a standard that will produce excellent pastors every time. We already have a standard. Men do get turned away. I believe the data supports that this standard has been weakly enforced. Again, I think there is much we agree on here, and I encourage you again to post this as a full article. Thank you for continuing the conversation!