Voices: Does God really qualify the called?

As I read Christianity Today’s recent article on the problems associated with The Passion Translation, a contemporary, evangelical proverb kept coming to mind: “God doesn’t call the qualified; he qualifies the called.” The statement has always irked me.

It is true that everything in our lives is the product of God’s sovereignty and benevolence, which includes any preparation for service we received before we were called. In that sense, God is always about the business of “qualifying the called.”

But that is not what people usually mean when they quote this extra-canonical proverb. They typically mean God calls the unqualified and then gives them everything they need to do the job for which he called them.

But is that true? Does God really have a habit of choosing people with no apparent qualifications and then setting them to work doing really hard things, like speaking on his behalf or leading a missionary movement?

Evidence from the Prophets

The prophets of the Old Testament are the most obvious source of information related to our question, and the evidence we find there is intriguing. On the one hand, many of the prophetic books tell us little about the men for which they are named. That could suggest a lack of education, experience, or elevated family status is not a barrier to divine calling.

When we are provided with information, however, a different picture of God’s work emerges. Jeremiah and Ezekiel are described as priests, which not only granted them elevated social status but also ensured their education in God’s law. Zephaniah is presented as a member of the extended royal family, and Daniel was a member of Israel’s elite who was educated in Babylon.

Even Amos, who is described as a shepherd and cultivator of fig trees (Amos 1:1; 7:14-15), illustrates how God’s actions cannot be described using overly simplistic rubrics. His vocations would not have directly prepared him for the work to which God called him, but his vocation as a shepherd was of tremendous symbolic value when he addressed Israel’s corrupt leadership (see Ezekiel 34:1-16).

Evidence from other parts of the Old Testament

As we turn our attention to the rest of the Old Testament, perhaps Moses is a good place to begin our quest for evidence for how God selected and empowered his authorized representatives (see Exodus 1-4). We cannot deny Moses was a complicated character. He murdered a man, and he was reluctant to heed God’s call on his life.

But we also must admit, few men in the ancient world were as well-prepared to lead Israel out of Egyptian custody and into the freedom of a covenant relationship with Yahweh as Moses was.

He had been educated at the court of Pharoah, in the heart of one of the ancient world’s cradles of civilization. He spent 40 years in relative isolation, not only reflecting on his failings, but perhaps also learning about his ancestral faith from those who also practiced that faith (see Genesis 25:1-6). And God not only supplemented Moses’s natural weaknesses with his own strength, but he also sent him a helper who had gifts he did not.

Is this a pattern we see in others whose stories are found in the Old Testament? It is difficult to say. We know little about the judges, and those we do know something about (Gideon, Sampson) did not have the best credentials for leading God’s people.

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob could each be described as “a wandering Aramean” (see Deuteronomy 26:5), but the names given to Abram and Sarai—even before God changed them—suggest elevated status, as does their wealth.

As for David, I find it likely he belonged to a family of some standing in his tribe (see Ruth 2:2), though he was also the youngest of his father’s sons. Even from a relatively young age, he demonstrated both courage and artistic talent.

And one wonders if David might have been literate. It would not have been necessary; others could have written down his poems and songs. But in an age when literacy seems to have been rare, he is credited with substantial literary output.

And then there are those who clearly had the advantage of wealth, status, or education. These include Solomon, Josiah, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Even Esther is presented as using her beauty and status in order to ensure God’s will was done, even if God is never mentioned in the book that bears her name.

Evidence from the New Testament

When we turn to the New Testament, we find a familiar story. The writers of the four Gospels tell us little about the background of “the Twelve,” but we know one of them was a tax collector, and four more were businessmen. These occupations required at least some level of education, and the writings attributed to Peter and John display a significant talent for thinking theologically.

Moreover, the old trope that the disciples never went to seminary is less than convincing. Three and a half years sitting under the Author of all truth, complete with field education, is training any pastor would envy.

And then, of course, there is Paul. Most believers know he was trained as a Pharisee by one of the leading rabbis of his day, but we sometimes forget he spent significant time in Arabia and in Tarsus after his conversion and before he began his ministry.

Neither Luke nor Paul tell us what the venerable apostle was doing during those years, but it is reasonable to suppose he was re-examining Scripture to see how the message of Jesus could be true. He may also have been learning more about Greek thought in preparation for ministry to the world outside of Israel’s historic borders.

Conclusions

What are we to make of all this evidence? How should we react when people without any apparent qualifications announce they have been called by God?

First, we are right as low-church Protestants to insist God can choose anyone he wants to do his work, and we are right to encourage the churches we lead not to discriminate on the basis of traits God cares nothing about.

As Carmen Joy Imes repeatedly insists in Becoming God’s Family, the old ways of dividing people into who counts and who does not were always counter to God’s will, and they have now been nailed to the cross with every other form of sin.

In other words, those of us who have wealth, power, standing, or any other form of superficial credentialing should act as if we had none, humbling ourselves before and entrusting ourselves to the care of God’s loving family.

That does not mean we must take every claim to represent God at face value. Much of the work that needs to be done in Christ’s kingdom requires specialized training and years of experience.

Just as we need not submit to a surgery performed by a high school biology student simply because she has dissected a cat, so also, we need not consent to the leadership or counsel of someone who has not proven his giftedness and skill for the work he wants to do.

Indeed, when enumerating the qualities of those entrusted with ministerial office (see 1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9), Paul insists only those who are qualified to do the work should fill those offices. It is noteworthy that “able to teach” is one of those qualifications, and in Paul’s context the ability to teach would have implied a thorough knowledge of the subject matter.

We are not being elitist when we insist our leaders and skilled workers meet minimum competency requirements. We are protecting God’s family from poor leadership and ineffective service.

Wade Berry is pastor of Second Baptist Church in Ranger and has been resident fellow in New Testament and Greek at B.H. Carroll Theological Seminary. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.