Elders: May an Elder Serve with No Children? Toward a Better Process for Deciding

When we’re confronted with a difficult choice — a choice where there are more data and more possibilities than we can easily think through, we tend to look for “handles,” that is, easy things to grab to get an answer. Thus, in the current Republican Presidential primary, there are approximately 500,000 candidates (give or take), each with his or her own positions and history and character. And it’s just too much trouble to actually read all the positions papers and watch the debates and read all the commentary and make a truly informed decision.

As a result, we look at things like: Does he or she look presidential? (Studies show that voters prefer tall candidates.) How good is he as a speaker? (Some people have become nominees and even Presidents largely due to their speech making skills.) Does he or she have the right positions? (And because we voters tend to judge by position more than whether they actually understand the issues, the candidates favor us with little more than slogans and sound bites culled from focus groups and surveys.) Is he or she supported by someone in whom I have confidence? (Rush Limbaugh, my union, my preacher …)

And just how well is this process of picking Presidents working out for us?

Just so, we, being human, apply the same thought process to the interpretation of Bible passages. We’re influenced by preacher or professor, we think as our parents taught us, we look for hooks — Which answer feels safest? Which answer fits the idea that the New Testament is a “constitution” for how to organize the church? Which answer lets me ordain my best friend as elder or keep a weak candidate out? And just as is true for picking presidential candidates, we are largely unconscious of our mental operations — thinking we’re being perfectly objective and fair whereas everyone else is obviously biased if not downright idiotic.

You see, true objectivity is very, very hard to come by, even when you try very hard. It’s not the intensity of the effort that gets the job done. Rather, it’s more about self-discipline. Can we discipline ourselves to think more (not perfectly) objectively? And while perfection won’t be found before the return of Jesus, we can certainly do better.

When I meet with clients to counsel them regarding some very hard and often very unpleasant decisions, I try to bring a measure of objectivity to the process by writing down the choices and then listing the advantages pro and con of each choice. Then you have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages. And not all advantages and disadvantages have equal weight.

Sometimes the obvious choice, when viewed this way, becomes obviously wrong. Sometimes the choice remains very difficult but at least the client is well aware of the consequences — good and bad — of his choice.

Finally, it helps if the client has help to think through the process. In religious circles, we’d call that “group hermeneutics.” It’s a role played by lawyers — to advise clients from a more objective perspective, to help them see possibilities and risks they’d not see on their own. And often it’s not just the lawyers, but also family and friends who weigh in on the decision.

And so, to me, the most critical part of hermeneutics is not just the principles of interpretation but the process of interpretation. And in the Churches of Christ there are far more books and classes taught on principles than on process — because we want to think it’s like algebra, objectively provable once you know the tricks. But the fact that we so often disagree about so much tells us that it’s not at all like algebra. (It’s not algorithmic.) Computers can do algebra. They can’t do hermeneutics.

Hence, one of the great blessings of living at this moment in history is the Internet. I can put forward a proposed interpretation of the Scriptures, and in less than 24 hours, I’ll have thoughtful responses from literally all over the world from people with very different backgrounds from mine. I can count on the readers to test my thinking — which is a very good thing.

In my experience, it’s a rare thing in many congregations of the Churches of Christ. I say this because I’ve met so many elders and preachers who seem entirely unfamiliar with the experience of being disagreed with! Indeed, I suspect we have some preachers who’ve gone their entire careers without having had their thinking seriously challenged by anyone. It’s a very, very unhealthy thing. And, of course, the same is certainly true of many elders. We have a hierarchical system that does not encourage disagreement or, more to the point, serious reflection regarding the meaning of the Scriptures.

As noted in the previous post, the first step in escaping this dreadful problem is to remove much of the fear from the hermeneutical process. So many have used fear as a means of getting their way — by threatening the membership with hellfire if they should disagree over how to read the Scriptures — that we struggle to realize that grace applies here as well. So long as our interpretation is driven by fear, we’ll slide over to the most legalistic, restrictive interpretation possible.

So long as we begin with the assumption that the Bible is a set of easy, algorithmic rules (like a computer program, constitution, or blueprint), we’ll overlook the less objective, more subjective parts of the Scriptures — such as discerning the working of the Spirit in our congregations.

Next, it really helps to go to the board and list the possible interpretations. And to get the fullest range of possibilities, you really need to ask a lot of people what they think. Some of this can be done on the Internet, but it really helps to draw in the great scholars of the past into the conversation. What did Luther think? What did Campbell think? What did Tertullian think? I’m not a believer that the traditions are binding on us, but neither do I think I’m the smartest man in history. So why not learn from some of the smartest men in history?

And then we have to consider the merits and demerits of the proposed interpretations. How well does each one fit with the great themes of Scripture — God’s covenant promises to Abraham, the outpouring of the Spirit, the Kingdom, the gospel, the atoning work of Jesus, grace, etc. Rather than asking, “Which is safest?” or “Which is most like a law?” we should ask, “Which is truest to the heart of God as revealed through Jesus and through his history of dealing with man as revealed in Scripture?” And that question requires that we’ve spent some time reflecting on the character and purposes of God as revealed in Genesis, Isaiah, Matthew, and Acts, as well as 1 Timothy and Titus. Paul wrote for an audience that knew the Law and the Prophets. To follow his thinking, so must we.

Sometimes this approach will lead to a crystal clear answer on which nearly all agree. Sometimes not. Capable students of the Word, who are deeply devoted to God, can disagree even after serious, prayerful, thoughtful study. But it should always lead to humility. When we honestly wrestle with the challenges of interpretation and take the time to do the hard work of hermeneutics, we appreciate the difficulty and so appreciate that good people might just disagree — and that we just might be mistaken. Indeed, if you can’t think and speak humbly about the Scriptures, you aren’t really enough like Jesus to understand what’s written there.

Therefore, in my experience, it’s the ones most ignorant of the Word who are most arrogant about their conclusions. They don’t know enough to understand what they don’t know.

So where does this leave us? Well, for me, it leaves me searching the comments and the commentaries for possible interpretations that I can list on the board and compare in light of the whole of the Scriptures.