It is a statement as old as I can remember, which makes it at least 40 years old. But I suspect has knocked around a little while longer than all that. It reeks of the kind of received wisdom and common sense that just seems obvious. Leaders are surely always readers, aren’t they? It must be true because, well, it rhymes and what says bolted-on fact more than that? (I refer you to the oft-cited and much ballyhooed rhyme concerning one who smelt it being the very miscreant deemed to have dealt it for corroboration!)

Now, before we go any further, and mainly to avoid the kind of asinine name-calling and missing of the point that usually occurs when I write this kind of thing, let me be clear: reading books is a perfectly acceptable. Dare I even say it is probably good. If you are a reader, that is great. If you are a leader wot reads and you find that helpful, praise God. I am not – just to be utterly and painfully clear – suggesting that reading is necessarily a bad thing and I am certainly not saying it is a wrong thing that ought to be avoided. But (and you knew after all that it was coming) I do reject the claim that it is a necessary thing.

Biblically, you will find no part of scripture suggesting being a big or serious reader is a necessary part of being a pastor or elder in the local church. Go and check out the eldership qualifications in the Bible. Read them carefully. There is not a single criteria that demands, or even implies, that a person ought to be a big reader in order to be an elder in the local church. It simply is not there.

That should seem obvious enough because, for most of church history, people didn’t really have easy access to books. That is a particularly modern phenomenon. Most churches are going to struggle for leaders throughout most of church history if being a big reader was a criteria. Thankfully for them, it isn’t. Phew!

What that tells those of us who do have easy access to books is that any suggestion it is necessary for us is necessarily extra-biblical. Whilst that isn’t to say it is wrong exactly, we do have to accept that it isn’t a biblical demand. If not a biblical demand, we have to be very careful before we go demanding it of those who would be elders in the local church. Minimally, we have to ask ourselves how comfortable we are demanding something that neither Jesus nor his Apostles did. That brings the question into sharper focus I think.

But perhaps we are of the view that it isn’t necessary but it is almost certainly preferable. We might not say you are disqualified if you aren’t a big reader, but it is hard to imagine making someone who isn’t a reader into an elder. I would still want to raise a few notes of caution here.

Which biblical qualifications for eldership are impossible for someone who isn’t a big reader? If the answer to that – as I would argue – is none of them, then it begs the questions why we are making it so important. What impediment to being a good and godly pastor is there in actuality when one is not a big reader? I can’t think of any.

We must also contend with the fact – and I know I will get the usual blowback when I say this – but most Christian books are really not worth reading. Even many of those that are would be vastly improved if they were drastically cut in length. For all the talk of the need to be a big reader, might it not be the case that those who read less are just avoiding the frequently churned out pap we are inevitably told are ‘must reads’? Perhaps non-readers, or at the very least irregular readers, are just saving time and therefore able to get more done. Reading mountains of books that tell them what they already know and believe using a mass of unnecessary words or, worse, poring over books that make them feel more stupid for having read them because of the sheer ineptitude with which they handle their subject or spending hours reading what they come to disregard as wrong or unhelpful, what advantage does the big reader who has read them all really have here? The small, irregular reader just saves the time that would be wasted here and can spend it on the work of ministry rather than reading books nobody in their congregation is reading only to discover that they either don’t agree with it, already believe what it says, are not particularly changed by it and learnt absolutely nothing new.

Someone might want to argue that a good book can help equip you to stand against error or false teaching, which is pretty important as a leader. I can happily concede that such a book might well help with that. And if Mr Big Reader finds just such a book to be helpful to his ministry then more power to his elbow. But Mr Non-Reader might just as happily point out that he has read and understood the relevant bits of scripture and feels quite equipped enough to stand up and defend the faith against error and doctrinal deviation. Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but if he stands up and manfully defends the faith and whatever doctrine is under attack having never touched some extra-biblical paperback, what are we to say? It doesn’t count because he hasn’t also read some non-biblical stuff that says the same thing? Then imagine Mr Non-Reader – hot off his sound defence of the faith – shows the extent of his week’s work on behalf of the church to boot and asks Mr Big Reader, who has spent all week reading, what he has to show for himself? One of them has defended the faith and done some useful practical work in the church; the other, who was also there defending the faith, has read a lot of stuff that he decided wasn’t very helpful or useful, but insists he wouldn’t have known that unless he read it all. Who has been the more helpful elder on such weeks?

Of course, it is something of a false dichotomy. Mr Big Reader might have done some very helpful things too (albeit perhaps less of them). He might have not only read unhelpful books, but even landed on one he does agree with and furnished him with some helpful arguments. Only, he can’t remember when he last needed them and isn’t sure when he is likely to call on them again. But perhaps he also read something helpful, useful and he was able to even put it into action in the church this week. The very best we might hope from a book! The question is whether the time wading through all the books he has been reading has been ultimately worth it for the gems he uncovered and if Mr Non-Reader has proven himself a less helpful and acceptable elder because he missed those gems but nevertheless dodged the dross? At best, it seems to me, particularly if we are going to be charitable, we can say that both approaches come with their distinct advantages and disadvantages.

And that is rather the point. There are of course some great things we can learn from books that might well be extremely helpful for our ministry. I am minded to believe they are fewer and farther between than many would have us believe, but exist they certainly do. I am similarly convinced choosing not to read in order to serve the church in other ways is similarly valuable. I don’t think it is helpful to insist, particularly where the Bible doesn’t, that there is a model to which we all must subscribe. A model, if we’re honest, that seems to suit a particular bookish academic type much more than others. A group of people, it bears pointing out, were entirely missing from Jesus’ original line up of 12 disciples. Only really Paul can lay claim to being anything of the sort. If Jesus doesn’t demand it, we need to be very careful before we suggest he got it wrong and missed something out!

So, no, I don’t necessarily think leaders are readers. I think leaders might be readers. But they equally might not be big readers. Jesus doesn’t ask any of them to be readers and doesn’t insist they read a particular amount. If he doesn’t, I don’t think we are wise to insist on things he doesn’t. Unless we think, with all our book-learning, we are smarter than him… but if you think that, you probably shouldn’t be a leader.