Monday, August 20, 2018

Testing Bishops for Skills, Aptitude, and Narcissism

[Posted at ByCommonConsent.com on July 23, 2018]

Chris Kimball is a seven-times grandfather, a father, and a husband.  He was a fast-track Mormon church leader, with the right genealogy and checking all the boxes, until about age 40. On a very different path since then.  He is a good friend of BCC.

I was a Mormon bishop in the mid-1990s.  The experience led to my turning in my temple recommend and leaving full activity.  From an orthodox Mormon point of view, it was a destructive experience, even disaster.  I spent the next 10 years in therapy (on-the-couch deep investigation therapy) sorting myself out.  I probably should not have been a bishop in the first place. 

On the other hand, the whole experience–good and bad–contributed greatly to subsequent accomplishment and rewards in my professional and managerial pursuits, and I came into the 20-teens reasonably happy with myself.
In many ways I was well prepared to be a bishop.  I knew the Church inside and out.  I knew most of the questions and much of the history.  I have a knack for administration (if you read the right scriptures you’d call it a gift, see D&C 46:15, 16).  At the time I thought I would score pretty well on Paul’s scorecard (see Titus 1:7-9).  Not particularly willful, not quick to anger, not given to wine, not a striker, not given to filthy lucre; a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, temperate.  (However, to claim “holy” and “blameless” would be more than a small move beyond the pale.)

But I didn’t have the emotional maturity or character that I think should be requisite for the job. I feel confident in saying that about myself because those years of therapy and maturation have made me . . . well, not whole exactly, but in sight of what whole might look like.

Last week a report issued that “Anglican leaders are considering expanding its assessments of clergy candidates to include more rigorous psychological testing.” Some telling quotes:
“Both introversion and extroversion can reflect the divine image, but it is also very wise for the church to consider pathologies.”
and
“Narcissism can give pastors a confidence in their own ability to the disparagement of others, and a tendency to see the black side of others rather than the contribution people make to the church. There is a temptation to bully and demean.”
In the article, Leslie Francis, a canon professor of religions and education at Warwick University, also “warned that more rigorous testing could exacerbate a trend in the Church of England to recruit conventional clergy who do not rock the boat.”

The LDS Church does none of this.  I think we should. Bishops. Stake Presidents. Mission Presidents.  Who else?  Are there emotional and psychological traits that would be qualifying or disqualifying for a Relief Society President?
If we paid more attention to what a bishop really does and should do and the character traits and training necessary, we would reduce the pool of qualified men.  That has costs and benefits.  At the same time, I believe it would become obvious to everybody that there are qualified women among us.

It would be a cultural revolution, including that it would require people to submit to examination, a lot like applying for the job.  I don’t see any doctrinal problem, or any insurmountable conflict with scripture or history.

To be fair, I would also reassess the job of the bishop.  If given the magic wand, I would drastically reduce the administrative work (counselors are or should be well qualified for this role).  I would eliminate all but the most extreme parts of the disciplinary process.  I would do everything I could to eliminate scorecards (activation, attendance, temple recommends, baptisms, solutions).  And I would (perhaps dramatically) emphasize the welfare and counseling roles.  Not with “fixes” in mind, but with help in mind.  Attentive to the journey, not some end goal.  As a small example, I would put all the temple recommend work on the counselors with strict instructions to stick with the questions as written, and accept only yes/no answers.  If somebody wants a discussion about their spiritual journey generally, I would put that over to the bishop for a discussion without judgment.

No comments: