The end of the year is usually a time for reflection so bear with me as I indulge in some loud thinking with this post. Among the many sermons you would have heard this year, and in years past, the one message you probably never heard was this — Jesus’ unique contribution to critical thinking.

Jesus was in many ways the pioneer of what is today considered a sine qua non for personal and professional success — critical thinking. He used to often provoke his audience to think deeply rather than blindly accept what he said. This he did mainly through use of two methods.

One was through parables and analogies that most of us are familiar with from the four gospels. A parable or analogy makes abstract ideas relatable thus fostering long term memory and reflection. Another technique Jesus deployed, now popularly known as the Socratic method of teaching, was asking probing questions which forced the listener to search for the answer without it being provided.

“Who do you say I am?” Jesus asked his disciples pressing them to reflect on his being. “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you?” he queried the crowds gathered near the Sea of Galilee to hear him. This to caution them against selective goodness. When the Pharisees tried to trap him with the question “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” Jesus turned the tables on them with counter questions of his own. Pointing to a coin used to pay tax he asked them “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?” The Gospel of Mathew alone records (NIV) Jesus having asked 109 questions of his listeners.

And in case you are wondering how Jesus invented these techniques of critical thinking long before the world knew what the term meant, don’t forget he spent a lot of time in quiet reflection and prayer. The ability to stay still, silent and commune with one’s inner self and the Almighty helps connect disjointed thoughts and provide striking insights that are hard to otherwise come by, particularly in today’s hyperconnected world.

Unfortunately Christianity, which became a religion much after the death and resurrection of Christ, does not encourage developing the critical thinking skills Jesus fostered. In fact Christian leaders behave very much like religious leaders have done for millennia — accept our special status, believe what we say and don’t question our decisions.

This dogma pervades even in the CSI where, as a church founded on democratic principles, we should be more open than most other churches to asking questions of our leaders. With the exception of Jesus’ teachings, which form the foundation of our faith, everything and everyone else should be questioned and not accepted blindly.

This failure to question, even by those tasked to do so, causes widespread maladministration and corruption as seen in CSI today. At the recent Synod Executive held in Chennai on Dec 11 (see my previous post Confusion Rules After Failure of CSI Synod Executive to Decide on Next General Synod) participants chose to keep quiet. This despite the most egregious violations of the CSI constitution and governance norms they witnessed.

Rev T. Bhasker of Medak Diocese (seen in pic with black bag attending Dec 11 meeting) speaking from the floor urged the Synod officers to extend the term of the current Synod, which expires mid January 2026, by nine months. Yet not one of the dozens of those present thought it fit to raise the all-important question: Is this not a violation of the CSI Constitution that does not provide for such extension?

Similarly when both the General Secretary and Treasurer of the Synod were included in a nomination committee that will shortlist their successors no one queried: “Is it not inappropriate to be on the panel that will not only shortlist your own successor but decide whose name is to be voted on first by the General Synod?

It is important as Christians to critically question some of the claims being made by our religious leaders and verify them against what the Bible actually says. For instance as Christians most of us uncritically accept the claim, often repeated, that bishops are shepherds of the flock. This is a canard that dates back to the second century where the first bishops of the recently formed Christian church started referring to themselves as shepherds. The attempt was to connect themselves to Jesus, who referred to himself as the Good Shepherd (John 10:11), or at least his apostles and thus put themselves above any scrutiny. They also began using a Shepherd’s staff (crozier) to reinforce this perception of their being a shepherd in the popular mind.

In actual fact the origin of the term bishop is the Greek word episkopos which means overseer. This got corrupted to biscop in old English and later to bishop. The dictionary meaning of overseer is one who supervises others, a manager hired for the task.

Jesus himself noted this difference between a person who is hired to look after the flock and a Shepherd saying “A hired hand in not the shepherd and does not own the sheep.” (John 10:12). He goes on to say how the hired hand will run away when the wolf comes unlike him, the Good Shepherd, who will lay down his life for the Sheep (which he did).

All this is not to in anyway suggest Bishops don’t deserve respect for the position of overseer they hold. But how they perform that task should be open, as in the case of any person hired to do a job, to scrutiny and correction.

Jesus’s entire life was spent challenging the status quo and opening the eyes of his followers to false beliefs and practices, including of religious leaders of his time. As true believers of Christ we need to follow his example particularly in relation to how his church is administered. One way to do this is to re-invent Bible study from the perspective of critical thinking that Jesus himself embodied and practiced. We need to take seriously the advice in Romans 12:2 on critical thinking: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”