An innovative idea for leadership integrity
My church’s elder selection process caught my attention
The overseer must be above reproach … not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome. —1 Timothy 3:2–3
Ensuring solid moral leadership of good character is a frequent challenge for Christian churches and ministries. Bitterness, big egos, abusive behavior, and addiction can often be concealed. By the time a church discovers that a pastor or elder has a character problem, a lot of harm may have already happened.
The general weakness of church discipline and the lack of relationships between churches adds to the problem. If I get a bad reputation in my church, I can just go to another church, especially if I relocate to a different town, and no one will know.
Not rushing someone into leadership can help. If a prospective church or ministry leader has a tendency toward anger or self-promotion, it will likely show up somewhere over the course of a few years. But what if the people who have seen someone’s ugly side are not consulted when that person is nominated for leadership?
That’s why I was fascinated, when I became involved with my current church, to learn about its process of selecting elders.
This church’s policy states that when an elder nomination is publicly announced, a 30-day period begins during which anyone in the congregation is encouraged to speak personally with the nominee if they are aware of any potentially disqualifying characteristics of the nominee. If the matter remains unresolved, the person is welcome to approach the board of elders to request that they try to resolve the matter through mediation or remove the nominee from consideration.
This carefully considered protocol caught my attention because I wished something similar had been present in a former church. A long time ago, I had a sharp conflict with a fellow church member, and my attempts to achieve reconciliation were unsuccessful. I explained my concerns to the pastor but did not take any public action.
Several months later, to my surprise, the other person was nominated for elder. Presumably, the pastor felt it would be awkward to say anything to the nominating committee, or he was willing to let the person become a church leader despite the recent instance of divisiveness.
I quietly resigned my membership and moved on. But I did send the pastor, who had recited the Sermon on the Mount from memory as his message one Sunday, a letter. I told him I was disappointed that he was better at reciting the Sermon on the Mount than at applying it. (You may think I’m diplomatic, but I do have a sarcastic style when provoked.)
No system is perfect. Perhaps in my current church, people with concerns might feel intimidated about speaking up against a respected leader. But I appreciate my church’s conscious, clearly stated intention to encourage resolution of differences among believers, and to avoid placing someone in leadership who is responsible for an unresolved difference.