How to identify a valid pastor.

[Spindle4]

Of course, but some are authorized and organized in the Biblical fashion...and others are unauthorized (or ''manufactured", as you put it) and largely unsupervised. There's no denying that fact, even as there's some argument over what it takes in order to be authorized.

It's nothing new, Albion, but certainly a worthwhile topic for discussion.

Remember this encounter?

Mat 21:23-27 Now when He came into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people confronted Him as He was teaching, and said, "By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?" (24) But Jesus answered and said to them, "I also will ask you one thing, which if you tell Me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things: (25) The baptism of John—where was it from? From heaven or from men?" And they reasoned among themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say to us, 'Why then did you not believe him?' (26) But if we say, 'From men,' we fear the multitude, for all count John as a prophet." (27) So they answered Jesus and said, "We do not know." And He said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.

Since the usurping of God's authority by Satan speaking through the serpent in Eden, others have done the same.

Jer 5:30-31 "An astonishing and horrible thing Has been committed in the land: (31) The prophets prophesy falsely, And the priests rule by their own power; And My people love to have it so. But what will you do in the end?

Lev 10:1-3 Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. (2) So fire went out from the LORD and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. (3) And Moses said to Aaron, "This is what the LORD spoke, saying: 'By those who come near Me I must be regarded as holy; And before all the people I must be glorified.' " So Aaron held his peace.

Mat 7:22-23 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' (23) And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

The Following Quotes Are From The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia™

Sadducees​

(săj`o͝osēz, săd`yo͝o–), sect of Jews formed around the time of the Hasmonean revolt (c.200 B.C.). Little is known concerning their beliefs, but according to Josephus Flavius, they upheld only the authority of the written law, and not the oral tradition held by the Pharisees. They are believed to have had a small following, drawn primarily from the upper classes. Eventually, they reached an accommodation with the Pharisees, which allowed them to serve as priests in exchange for acceptance of Pharasitical rulings regarding the law. Their sect was centered on the cult of the Temple, and they ceased to exist after its destruction in A.D. 70.

Pharisees​

(fâr`ĭsēz), one of the two great Jewish religious and political parties of the second commonwealth. Their opponents were the Sadducees, and it appears that the Sadducees gave them their name, perushim, Hebrew for "separatists" or "deviants." The Pharisees began their activities during or after the Hasmonean revolt (c.166–142 B.C.). The Pharisees upheld an interpretation of Judaism that was in opposition to the priestly Temple cult. They stressed faith in the one God; the divine revelation of the law both written and oral handed down by Moses through Joshua, the elders, and the prophets to the Pharisees; and eternal life and resurrection for those who keep the law. Pharisees insisted on the strict observance of Jewish law, which they began to codify. While in agreement on the broad outlines of Jewish law, the Pharisees encouraged debate on its fine points, and according to one view, practiced the tradition of zuggot, or pairs of scholars with opposing views. They developed the synagogue as an alternative place of worship to the Temple, with a liturgy consisting of biblical and prophetic readings, and the repetition of the shma, the basic creed of Judaism. In addition, they supported the separation of the worldly and the spiritual spheres, ceding the former to the secular rulers. Though some supported the revolt against Rome in A.D. 70, most did not. One Pharisee was Yohanan ben Zakkai, who fled to Jamnia, where he was instrumental in developing post-Temple Judaism. By separating Judaism from dependence on the Temple cult, and by stressing the direct relation between the individual and God, the Pharisees laid the groundwork for normative rabbinic Judaism. Their influence on Christianity was substantial as well, despite the passages in the New Testament which label the Pharisees "hypocrites" or "offspring of the vipers." St. Paul was originally a Pharisee. After the fall of the Temple (A.D. 70), the Pharisees became the dominant party until c.135.

[Copyright © 2022, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/]

 

[Albion]

It's nothing new, Albion, but certainly a worthwhile topic for discussion.

Remember this encounter?

Mat 21:23-27 Now when He came into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people confronted Him as He was teaching, and said, "By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?" (24) But Jesus answered and said to them, "I also will ask you one thing, which if you tell Me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things: (25) The baptism of John—where was it from? From heaven or from men?" And they reasoned among themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say to us, 'Why then did you not believe him?' (26) But if we say, 'From men,' we fear the multitude, for all count John as a prophet." (27) So they answered Jesus and said, "We do not know." And He said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.

Since the usurping of God's authority by Satan speaking through the serpent in Eden, others have done the same.

Jer 5:30-31 "An astonishing and horrible thing Has been committed in the land: (31) The prophets prophesy falsely, And the priests rule by their own power; And My people love to have it so. But what will you do in the end?

Lev 10:1-3 Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. (2) So fire went out from the LORD and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. (3) And Moses said to Aaron, "This is what the LORD spoke, saying: 'By those who come near Me I must be regarded as holy; And before all the people I must be glorified.' " So Aaron held his peace.

Mat 7:22-23 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' (23) And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

The Following Quotes Are From The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia™

Sadducees​

(săj`o͝osēz, săd`yo͝o–), sect of Jews formed around the time of the Hasmonean revolt (c.200 B.C.). Little is known concerning their beliefs, but according to Josephus Flavius, they upheld only the authority of the written law, and not the oral tradition held by the Pharisees. They are believed to have had a small following, drawn primarily from the upper classes. Eventually, they reached an accommodation with the Pharisees, which allowed them to serve as priests in exchange for acceptance of Pharasitical rulings regarding the law. Their sect was centered on the cult of the Temple, and they ceased to exist after its destruction in A.D. 70.

Pharisees​

(fâr`ĭsēz), one of the two great Jewish religious and political parties of the second commonwealth. Their opponents were the Sadducees, and it appears that the Sadducees gave them their name, perushim, Hebrew for "separatists" or "deviants." The Pharisees began their activities during or after the Hasmonean revolt (c.166–142 B.C.). The Pharisees upheld an interpretation of Judaism that was in opposition to the priestly Temple cult. They stressed faith in the one God; the divine revelation of the law both written and oral handed down by Moses through Joshua, the elders, and the prophets to the Pharisees; and eternal life and resurrection for those who keep the law. Pharisees insisted on the strict observance of Jewish law, which they began to codify. While in agreement on the broad outlines of Jewish law, the Pharisees encouraged debate on its fine points, and according to one view, practiced the tradition of zuggot, or pairs of scholars with opposing views. They developed the synagogue as an alternative place of worship to the Temple, with a liturgy consisting of biblical and prophetic readings, and the repetition of the shma, the basic creed of Judaism. In addition, they supported the separation of the worldly and the spiritual spheres, ceding the former to the secular rulers. Though some supported the revolt against Rome in A.D. 70, most did not. One Pharisee was Yohanan ben Zakkai, who fled to Jamnia, where he was instrumental in developing post-Temple Judaism. By separating Judaism from dependence on the Temple cult, and by stressing the direct relation between the individual and God, the Pharisees laid the groundwork for normative rabbinic Judaism. Their influence on Christianity was substantial as well, despite the passages in the New Testament which label the Pharisees "hypocrites" or "offspring of the vipers." St. Paul was originally a Pharisee. After the fall of the Temple (A.D. 70), the Pharisees became the dominant party until c.135.

[Copyright © 2022, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/]

I'm sorry, but none of that goes to the point that's at issue here.

Yes, there are abusive pastors, ministers, priests, etc. And, yes, the Hebrew priestly class, which is hardly anything like the Christian ministry, is and was subject to criticism. And ordinary believers overstep their authority at times.

All fine and dandy, but the notion that there is NO such thing as a series of properly called and installed congregational leaders flies in the face of the New Testament...big time.

 

[Spindle4]

I'm sorry, but none of that goes to the point that's at issue here.

Yes, there are abusive pastors, ministers, priests, etc. And, yes, the Hebrew priestly class, which is hardly anything like the Christian ministry, is and was subject to criticism. And ordinary believers overstep their authority at times.

All fine and dandy, but the notion that there is NO such thing as a series of properly called and installed congregational leaders flies in the face of the New Testament...big time.

I'll leave you to resolve your conundrum then. It's just not a new one and in any given calling, vocation, or profession the qualification is not worth the paper it is written on regardless of its appeal to authority, or a person's previous good service record, if the fruit of their labour turns out to be rotten.

Sir Lloyd George Geering ONZ GNZM CBE (born 26 February 1918) is a New Zealand theologian who faced charges of heresy in 1967 for teaching that the Bible's record of Jesus' death and resurrection is not true. He considers Christian and Muslim fundamentalism to be "social evils". Geering is emeritus professor of religious studies at Victoria University of Wellington. In 2007, he was appointed a Member of the Order of New Zealand, New Zealand's highest civilian honour, limited to 20 living people. Geering turned 100 in February 2018.

Geering was ordained as a minister of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand (PCANZ) in 1943 and practised as a minister in Kurow; Opoho, Dunedin (1945-1950); and St James, Wellington (1950-1956) before turning to theological teaching. He was the honorary associate minister of St John's Church in Wellington from 1971 to 1983. He was named honorary assistant at St Andrew's in Wellington in 1989. Geering remains on the register (Fasti) of New Zealand Presbyterian ministers.[11]
Quoted from Wkpd: Lloyd Geering Heresy Charge

 

[Albion]

It's just not a new one and in any given calling, vocation, or profession the qualification is not worth the paper it is written on regardless of its appeal to authority, or a person's previous good service record, if the fruit of their labour turns out to be rotten.

I think we all know that there are pastors who are not fit for the position or else do not adhere to the standards expected of them.

However, that isn't the issue that was put to readers of this thread.

 

[torial]

In today's world, there are so many mail-order and self-proclaimed heads of congregations in addition to the people ordained in the traditional way by some denomination, many people wonder how to know where to draw the line when they are looking for a church or minister. What would help them decide?

So I think Spindle4 had been getting close to the answer. The key ultimately is to watch them over a period of time before jumping in and committing. That isn't perfect, but hopefully in the that time if the pastor exhibits bad fruit (Mt 7:17-18) -- and perhaps an explicit list of bad works from Galatians 5:19-21 can be used to ascertain the bad fruit.

For anyone teaching in spiritual matters, I don't care how smart or eloquent they are, the importance is seeing the fruit of the Spirit in their lives (Gal 5:22-23). Usually the two combined -- if the person lacks fruit of the Spirit, they will exhibit the works of the flesh is a good way to check. I've also noticed that sometimes people can be over the top with a particular spiritual fruit and that can be refreshing in its own way - and I would trust them to teach [esp where it overlaps w/ that particular fruit].

 

[NewCreation435]

from what I have seen people who call themselves pastors who want all the attention themselves or brag about what they have done is a red flag. Also, if they are obsessed about money or the size of the building the church is in. Also, if the pastor doesn't focus on Jesus and his preaching is not Christ centered I would run away. A true pastor is someone who has a strong prayer life and is humble and dependent on God and is Christ centered.

 

[BruceLeiter]

In today's world, there are so many mail-order and self-proclaimed heads of congregations in addition to the people ordained in the traditional way by some denomination, many people wonder how to know where to draw the line when they are looking for a church or minister. What would help them decide?

Compare every bit of their preaching and teaching with the Bible's truths in the context of the whole Scriptures, and you will determine their faithfulness to God.

 

[tango]

Old thread I know, but what the heck

I suspect it's easy to look for a "quick burn test" to figure if a pastor is good or bad and the simple reality is that it might be easy to spot someone who shouldn't be a pastor but it takes a lot longer to spot someone who is genuine. In that regard it's much like life, we can see if someone is a jerk fairly quickly but it takes time to determine that someone is solid. It's easy to put on a good show for an hour or two, and it's easy to put on a good show for a YouTube video when your viewers will never get to see how you live your life when you're not in front of a camera.

Formal training seems like it can be a divisive issue. One would hope that a pastor would know their way around the Bible but at the same time formal training can sometimes break off someone's individuality and turn them into another clone - we feed individuals into the sausage machine which turns out identical sausages who think according to what the system wants rather than necessarily how they are. The original disciples didn't have formal training when Jesus called them. But then there are pastors out there who aren't formally trained and don't spot heresy even when it takes over their church.

Part of the reason I steer clear from attending an online church is that it's impossible to really connect with the pastor or the other parishioners. At my church I chat with the pastor briefly before the service and after the service. I can call him, email him, meet with him in person. He lives half a mile from me so I might see him at the grocery store or the gas station. I can see his wife and his children and see that they are comfortable around him, I can ask him totally unscripted questions and see how he responds to them. If I only ever saw him on a screen I'd have no way of knowing whether he treated his family well, whether he lived the message he preached, or indeed whether he even wrote the message he preached. On a Sunday morning he might be delivering a message that someone else prepared, but when I talk to him face to face he has no way of knowing what I'm going to say so I see something much more uncensored and unfiltered. If all I saw was a talking head on TV then for all I know he might hit his wife and terrorize his children while having multiple affairs.

Attending his church gave me a positive first impression and after multiple visits to the church and a couple of meetings with the pastor I could feel comfortable that he was genuine. I'm not sure I agree with him on everything theologically speaking but I'm not aware of any differences that are of sufficient importance that I would want to leave the church over them.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

In today's world, there are so many mail-order and self-proclaimed heads of congregations in addition to the people ordained in the traditional way by some denomination, many people wonder how to know where to draw the line when they are looking for a church or minister. What would help them decide?

In general...

1. Does the pastor believe and teach that homosexuality is sin?
2. Does the pastor advocate strongly for people to get their children out of the godless public school system?
3. Does the pastor believe and teach that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?
4. Does the pastor's wife seem joyful?
5. Are the pastor's children respectful?
6. Can the pastor read the book of John in Greek?

A "No" to any of the first five is an immediate disqualifier.

A "Yes" to all of the first five is an excellent start and all six means you've found a rare gem of a pastor who takes both righteousness and the word of God seriously.

There are other doctrinal issues as well, of course, but chances are excellent that if he passes that test, he's going to believe in things like the deity of Jesus and in His death, burial and bodily resurrection from the dead, as well as in His eventual return and in the Trinity , etc.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

Compare every bit of their preaching and teaching with the Bible's truths in the context of the whole Scriptures, and you will determine their faithfulness to God.

Says the guy from the Church of Christ and the Baptist and the Catholic and the Greek Orthodox and the Presbyterian and the Lutheran and the Branch Davidian and the Moonies and the (fill in the blank).

There is no such thing as a group who calls themselves Christian (whether they actually are or not) who does not also claim that their doctrine is biblical.

 

[BruceLeiter]

@VeritatisVerba, I don't care whether or not they claim to be biblical, but I think that we must discern through attendance and questioning whether or not they are biblical in their approach to the whole Scripture. That means that we must know what the Bible says in evaluating pastors in its light.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

@VeritatisVerba, I don't care whether or not they claim to be biblical, but I think that we must discern through attendance and questioning whether or not they are biblical in their approach to the whole Scripture. That means that we must know what the Bible says in evaluating pastors in its light.

Well, I don't disagree with you in principle, of course. My only point is that everyone thinks that their doctrine is biblical. David Koresh could quote you whole books of the bible from memory and there are people that, to this day, believe that fool was a Messiah. Without sound reason, the bible can be molded to fit any doctrine one desires to believe. If the test isn't objective, it's worthless.

 

[BruceLeiter]

Well, I don't disagree with you in principle, of course. My only point is that everyone thinks that their doctrine is biblical. David Koresh could quote you whole books of the bible from memory and there are people that, to this day, believe that fool was a Messiah. Without sound reason, the bible can be molded to fit any doctrine one desires to believe. If the test isn't objective, it's worthless.

@VeritatisVerba, for me, the objective test is the Bible itself in its whole context. Of course, every decision about pastors must be bathed with persistent prayer for God's gift of wisdom to discern his will.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

@VeritatisVerba, for me, the objective test is the Bible itself in its whole context.

I understand why you say this but your own statement presupposes that you can read the bible and understand it and that you can understand doctrines and are able to detect whether those doctrines are compatible with what you read in scripture.

Also, notice the contradiction implied in how you started that comment..."...for me, the objective test is..."
Is it "for you" or is it "objective"?

Of course, every decision about pastors must be bathed with persistent prayer for God's gift of wisdom to discern his will.

You cannot pray without the use of your mind, Bruce! You can't even understand what prayer is without the use of your mind. If sound reason isn't insisted upon then, for all we know, passing gas is as good a prayer as any! Right?

Any response you offer will not have even one intelligible syllable communicated apart from the use of reason.

Reason is the foundation of any and all discourse, including both the reading of scripture and prayer. There can be no communication whatsoever apart from the use of logic, whether prayer, scripture, poem or prose. Whether its protein construction instructions encoded in DNA or pictographs on an Egyptian column; whether it's 21 century digital communications or stone age smoke signals - all of it has meaning because, and ONLY because, of the application of sound reason.

 

[BruceLeiter]

I understand why you say this but your own statement presupposes that you can read the bible and understand it and that you can understand doctrines and are able to detect whether those doctrines are compatible with what you read in scripture.

Also, notice the contradiction implied in how you started that comment..."...for me, the objective test is..."
Is it "for you" or is it "objective"?


You cannot pray without the use of your mind, Bruce! You can't even understand what prayer is without the use of your mind. If sound reason isn't insisted upon then, for all we know, passing gas is as good a prayer as any! Right?

Any response you offer will not have even one intelligible syllable communicated apart from the use of reason.

Reason is the foundation of any and all discourse, including both the reading of scripture and prayer. There can be no communication whatsoever apart from the use of logic, whether prayer, scripture, poem or prose. Whether its protein construction instructions encoded in DNA or pictographs on an Egyptian column; whether it's 21 century digital communications or stone age smoke signals - all of it has meaning because, and ONLY because, of the application of sound reason.

@VeritatisVerba, my idea is that our reason has to be filled with God's reasoning fully informed by the Bible's teachings and history, if we are going to interpret it well. It's the Bible's assumptions that must inform our reasoning, not our assumptions about what it says. That's all I'm saying.

The way I go about interpreting the Bible is with word studies and other parallel passages when I consider a verse or chapter rather than extraneous considerations outside of the Bible. The Bible will interpret itself, and we're just along for the ride.

The method I love is reading the Bible from cover to cover over and over again to get the picture of the whole Bible instead of that of a verse here and there. I can then fit a chapter or verse into God's big picture to help me understand it better.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

@VeritatisVerba, my idea is that our reason has to be filled with God's reasoning fully informed by the Bible's teachings and history, if we are going to interpret it well. It's the Bible's assumptions that must inform our reasoning, not our assumptions about what it says. That's all I'm saying.

I can't think of any assumptions that anyone needs to hold to.

The way I go about interpreting the Bible is with word studies and other parallel passages when I consider a verse or chapter rather than extraneous considerations outside of the Bible. The Bible will interpret itself, and we're just along for the ride.

This is generally true and a practice that will serve you well in many, if not most situations but I would just say to you that proper bible study doesn't begin with the bible, it begins with God. That probably sounds rather contradictory but it's really not. Theology is the logos of the theos, the logic (understanding) of God and you cannot rightly interpret the bible if you have a faulty theology proper. In other words, if you do not get your doctrine about who God is correct, it will screw up you bible study like you can't believe.

When God says to Abraham, "Know I know...", it is your theology proper that tells you that it means what it says or that it's a figure of speech. You are forced to choose and the choice will be made based entirely on whether you come to the scripture with the idea of an immutable God or the idea of a relational God.

That's just one of hundreds of examples where such things happen.

However! To your point! The bible itself tells us which of these two choices are the right one! It states explicitly which attributes of God are foundational to others and so it's one of those things were we're really just talking about opposite sides of the same coin.

The method I love is reading the Bible from cover to cover over and over again to get the picture of the whole Bible instead of that of a verse here and there. I can then fit a chapter or verse into God's big picture to help me understand it better.

I completely agree with this!

One time, I got it into my head to write all the Pauline letters by hand. What an amazing thing to do! I loved it. I didn't even realize how much they meant to me until my wife nearly threw the notebooks I wrote them in into the trash! I flipped out! It's one of things I'd want to rescue if my house ever caught on fire.

 

[BruceLeiter]

I can't think of any assumptions that anyone needs to hold to.


This is generally true and a practice that will serve you well in many, if not most situations but I would just say to you that proper bible study doesn't begin with the bible, it begins with God. That probably sounds rather contradictory but it's really not. Theology is the logos of the theos, the logic (understanding) of God and you cannot rightly interpret the bible if you have a faulty theology proper. In other words, if you do not get your doctrine about who God is correct, it will screw up you bible study like you can't believe.

When God says to Abraham, "Know I know...", it is your theology proper that tells you that it means what it says or that it's a figure of speech. You are forced to choose and the choice will be made based entirely on whether you come to the scripture with the idea of an immutable God or the idea of a relational God.

That's just one of hundreds of examples where such things happen.

However! To your point! The bible itself tells us which of these two choices are the right one! It states explicitly which attributes of God are foundational to others and so it's one of those things were we're really just talking about opposite sides of the same coin.


I completely agree with this!

One time, I got it into my head to write all the Pauline letters by hand. What an amazing thing to do! I loved it. I didn't even realize how much they meant to me until my wife nearly threw the notebooks I wrote them in into the trash! I flipped out! It's one of things I'd want to rescue if my house ever caught on fire.

You say, @VeritatisVerba, "I can't think of any assumptions that anyone needs to hold to." I say that the Bible assumes that God created the whole universe and you and me, that humanity rebelled against our Creator and has ever since Adam and Eve did, that Jesus is fully divine and fully human to suffer, die, and rise bodily and permanently from the dead to forgive us and give believers eternal life, that God is one God in three Persons, and that Jesus will return to judge everyone and to perfect believers in our bodily resurrection as well as his universe.

Among others, the Bible has those assumptions, in the light of which we can interpret the rest correctly.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

You say, @VeritatisVerba, "I can't think of any assumptions that anyone needs to hold to." I say that the Bible assumes that God created the whole universe and you and me, that humanity rebelled against our Creator and has ever since Adam and Eve did, that Jesus is fully divine and fully human to suffer, die, and rise bodily and permanently from the dead to forgive us and give believers eternal life, that God is one God in three Persons, and that Jesus will return to judge everyone and to perfect believers in our bodily resurrection as well as his universe.

Among others, the Bible has those assumptions, in the light of which we can interpret the rest correctly.

I agree that it teaches all of those things but they aren't assumptions or presuppositions. If we are looking for presuppositions, the clearest one is that God exists. The bible does not make direct arguments for the existence of God. Rather it is written from a theistic paradigm, meaning it simply assumes that He exists and proceeds from that premise..

The creation, just to take the first thing from your list, isn't presupposed by the bible. The very first sentence states "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.". Had that been an assumption, Moses wouldn't have felt the need to state it. See what I mean?

So, in short, we don't actually disagree on this point, we're just using the term "assumption" in different ways.

My only point then is this...
You cannot identify these doctrines without the use of sound reason. You also cannot compare them to other passages, detect contradictions between them, or even think to make such comparisons in the first place without using reason to do it. And once the idea of comparison has occurred to you, it cannot be done properly if reason is abandoned. There is simply no knowledge, whether theological or otherwise, apart from the proper use of the mind.

 

[Faith]

Direct them to the churches who require seminary education and ordination such as the LCMS. The Pastors in these churches are certified by their denominations for ordination.

I’m Catholic formerly LCMS for awhile and was going to say the same thing.

 

[Faith]

Hello, and thank you for that thoughtful reply, but the question was not about quality pastors, "good" ones, that is. It was asking about legitimate ones and how a person could judge, since there are all sorts of different ways that people become pastors, ministers, priests, etc. including some people who just set up shop and claim that they had the "call" from God directly or something else like that.

Concerning your reply here, some of these latter cases are actually effective at preaching and counseling, but the question asked by inquirers is "are they legitimate," i.e. valid clergy, or not? Of course, that is somewhat dependent upon the rules of the denomination in question, but some of these are non-denominational pastors and some denominations are also suspect. So, the inquirer is left wondering.

I tried a church once and emailed the chuch asking what kind of training their pastors go through. I never received an answer, so I had to ask two or three more times before they replied and told me their pastors had no formal trading. I never went back.