by

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.