The last of the quotes from Lynne Baab on personality types in congregations

I've already posted a few times about Lynne Baab's book, Personality Type in Congregations: How to Work with Others More Effectively. In the last third of the book, Baab addresses personality types in congregations (In other words, the personality type of the church, not just the individuals within it.), considering type in congregational activities (offering a variety of activities to support differing personality types), using type to help be a more effective leader in the church and to help a congregation through a time of change, and using type in pastoral care situations  such as counseling, premarital counseling, ministering to families and even in confirmation classes (helping kids better understand why they connect with some forms of worship or prayer and not others). 

I want to share some more quotes from this book, but if you're interested in type and congregation life, I would definitely encourage you to read the entire book. Baab does a great job of pulling in personality type wisdom from a very large variety of sources and tailoring it specifically to situations, conflicts and service within the church. She also includes several appendices that list resources for digging deeper into specific sub-topics. This book is well worth the read. 

"Without new challenges, we can't grow, and growth and change are a significant part of human development." 

I think one of the things I appreciated most about Baab's book is her emphasis on growth. Using type to better understand yourself and others is a good thing, but it can also be a tool for growth. Baab encourages pastors and leaders not to talk too much about type to their congregations as it might be seen as a different gospel, but she points out that the principals can still be used to help cope with conflict, to ease transitions, and to spur growth both within individuals and the congregation as a whole. 

"Understanding patterns of spiritual growth, particularly growth in self-acceptance and growth through facing the inferior function and the shadow, can help us develop a spirit of gentleness and kindness as we work with others in our congregations. We are all growing. We are all 'people i progress.' We all experience stress and behave in childish way when under pressure. We need a kind word or a gentle listening ear when we experience growth pants. I long four our congregation to be places offering that kind of love and acceptance along with tolerance for the complexity of our spiritual journeys."

This was kind of her concluding paragraph on the importance of growth. She then went on to talk through several specifics such as quiet activities vs. activities that involve lots of interaction between people. Teaching methods in Sunday school classes and how to teach in such a way that all personality types are engaged and learning. She said some stuff about small groups that fit me to a T. (Don't go changing out the people in my small group every single year. I don't like that. I want to get to know people.) She touches on worship, preaching, the way the building looks, and even scheduling events. In other words, she hits upon several things that we might not think about as being helpful or hurtful to people and she gives tips on how to make sure people feel a part of the body rather than being surprised or hurt by things (even simple things like not knowing a part of the service was changed at the last minute). 

She also has an interesting section on Generation X. Considering that the Emergent movement is all about reaching X and Y, her take on the differences via type rather than culture are intriguing. Baab quickly points out that, for whatever reason, various generations seem to fit into specific types. The generation from 1910-1930, that were involved in WWII and were raised during a time of hard work and duty, display STJ characteristics. Whereas the Baby Boomer generation has more of an N feel to it as people valued exploration and envelope pushing, but they retained the J sense of responsibility of the generation before them. Gen X, though, seems to be more perceiving than previous generations. Baab explains, "They are a generation raised on options, more options than most of us who are slightly older can even imagine. MTV and the Internet illustrate the plethora of possibilities that have shaped this generation." Baab believes that most congregations carry a J flavor, which could be one reason why Generation Xers don't feel comfortable in church. She encourages congregations to have more spontaneity and openness "without sacrificing that which is important to [you]." I particularly liked this bit, "One Presbyterian church with a high percentage of Generation X attenders is known in its presbytery as 'the barefoot church' because one 20-something fellow occasionally come to church barefoot." 

"Some conflict arises because we don't understand differences between ourselves and other.... We move to another level of misunderstanding when we believe that Kyle is being malicious or deliberately insensitive. This can lead to painful and damaging conflict."

I think this is particularly true. Since I've studied personality types, I generally have a sense of conflict through that lens. There are many times in a conflict when I hear one person say incredibly nasty things about the other person, as though the other person is being deliberately selfish or rude. But since I see where the other person is coming from through the lens of type, I often see just the opposite. Though you may hear them as being selfish, if you think through what it is they're actually saying, you'd realize that the reality is that they're trying to do something that will help and benefit everyone. (Yes, I do have a specific very acrimonious conflict in mind that happened among parents in my girls' class a few years back. It was heartbreaking to see these parents tear each other apart simply because they refused to take the time to listen and really hear what the other was saying.)

This happens in the church as well. Despite all of the Biblical admonitions to forgive and forebear and love, people see through the lens of their own personality type. Baab continues,

"Type can help us work with others in our congregation by giving us vocabulary and concepts to describe these differences in style. Once we understand them, we can be more gentle and also more assertive in asking that other styles be affirmed and included. This understanding can help us avoid falling into the trap of attributing evil to people when their styles differ from ours, and it can prevent conflict from escalating to damaging levels."

Baab also talked about change within extraverted vs. introverted congregations. Her descriptions of introverted congregations fit our church incredibly well. (We only have a couple extraverts in our congregation.) It surprised me to consider that change would happen differently, though, based on whether the congregation was introverted or extraverted. That was a neat little insight. 

There are three books on type that I'm interested in reading next. One is the book, Gifts Differing, by Isabel Briggs Myers and Peter B. Myers. (Isabel Briggs Myers helped to develop the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, so reading this book would be going to the source.) The second is Beside Ourselves: Our HIdden Personalities in Everyday Life, by Naomi Quenk. I want to explore this whole inferior function idea more, which is what this book gets into. And the last has to do with parenting styles -- The M.O.M.S. Handbook: Understanding Your Personality Type in Mothering. Baab mentions that this book described her parenting style to a tee and they hadn't even interviewed her for the book. 

More quotes from Lynne Baab on Personality Types and working effectively with others

These are more quotes by Lynne M. Baab from her book, Personality Type in Congregations: How to Work with Others More Effectively.

"Psychological type is not a good source of direction for finding a place to serve. Type can provide us great understanding of how to serve once we get to a place of ministry. Type can help us understand what tasks will be easy and what tasks will be hard. type can help us understand which tasks will be tiring. Type can help us predict some of the ways we may experience conflict with people. 

"The best and most effective service grows out of our deeply held values, commitments, and passions, which give us energy to persevere when things become boring or difficult. These values, commitments, and passions can come from a variety of places in our lives."

I thought this was particularly interesting and insightful. Baab gives an example of an ESTJ gal who helps out in the church in several very practical ways (which is typical of ESTJ's). But at one point she decided to help with a hospice center, thinking that she'd do practical things like wash dishes and tidy up. But what she found was that caregivers wanted a chance to get away and she ended up sitting with the patients who often wanted to talk out what they were going through. So here was a very practical DO-ing oriented woman who was expected to sit and listen quietly to someone emote -- something she would find incredibly hard to do. But because she still felt strongly about the general task of helping with hospice care, she persevered and ended up growing richly in ways she hadn't expected. Because her weakest abilities were called upon, she felt like she had to rely ever more heavily upon God to learn to listen and empathize with people. But through it, she found healing for some of her own past wounds. Here she was doing a task that she never would have chosen based on personality type, and yet it stretched her and she grew in unexpected and exciting ways. And it worked because she felt strongly about hospice even though it wasn't an area of strength skill-wise for her. 

Baab encourages people to pursue what they feel passionately about, and only after that choice has been made should they consider how best to do their service in light of their personality type and strengths. 

"At midlife and beyond, people usually grow in their ability to use their less-preferred functions. In Navigating Midlife the authors write that beginning at midlife, people 'need to expand their identity by looking inward to discover the pieces of their personalities that are not yet developed. They need to move toward their own wholeness.' The push to grow toward wholeness often motivates people to try new areas of service  tat they never would have considered." 

I've heard this before, that as you grow older you're more willing, and even excited about, trying things that aren't as easy for your personality type. 

"Once we begin serving in a specific ministry, type can give us understanding and insight into why certain tasks are enjoyable and others are not. Type can help us make choices within that ministry to bring balance to our lives. Understanding type can help us know when to delegate tasks to someone else. Type can help us know when to ask for help."

Again, she's advocating for being involved in a ministry we feel strongly about rather than selecting something just because our type indicates that we have strengths in that area. Then she encourages people to find means of interacting with that ministry that fit our type. 

"Burnout can be like carpal tunnel syndrome or repetitive motion syndrome. Overuse of one part of our body results in soreness and pain. ... Overuse of our gifts and strengths in ministry follows the same pattern as repetitive motion syndrome. By the time we experience pain, the pattern of overuse is firmly established. Whether we are a pastor or a lay leader, the congregation expects us to continue to perform in the areas where we have shown so much competence. It is extremely difficult to form new patterns of behavior." 

Baab points out that there's three main ways to end up burned out: being overtaxed in an area of weakness until you're completely drained,  being overtaxed in an area of strength until you're injured in a way similar to getting carpal tunnel, and being so frustrated and stressed that you give up. She says that just because an area is our strength doesn't mean we can't still get burned out in it (which is especially a problem for people that work in their strength and then end up doing volunteer work that leans on that same strength). Just like with carpal tunnel, it can sometimes be helpful to strengthen surrounding muscles/functions. If we're strong extroverts and have to call upon that strength a lot for both work and church life, we may need to take time to strengthen our introverted function by taking on more behind the scenes tasks within the congregation for awhile. 

The frustration and stress section relied heavily upon an example, but she explains that we could work in our strength, but because the board or pastor or people we're helping don't have the same strengths as we do, they may not recognize the amount of work we've put in to something, or they may be grateful to us but not value our work. (In the example a T was thanked by a board of F's, but what she really wanted was her work to be critiqued and then used. She ended up leaving the church because all her hard labor was ignored... until, ironically, after she left the congregation and the F's learned how to use the documents that she had drawn up.) I definitely could relate to this example as I often feel like I'm thanked but not necessarily appreciated. 

Baab offers some great advice to pastors and other leaders in terms of helping people get plugged into the church life. She then moves on to talk about prayer and Bible study and how it differs among different personality types. She brought up Lectio Divina, which is an ancient form of Bible study, and she showed how the four stages of the Lectio Divina met the strengths of several different personality types, making it a good example for how to include all personality types in the same study. 

Quotes from Lynne Baab on Personality Types

I covered the "why" of personality types in my last post about Lynne Baab's book, Personality Type in Congregations: How to Work with Others More Effectively, but this time around I wanted to list some direct quotes from the book. 

"...we need to make sure there are places in every church where every type preference can experienced."

I think this is really important. I understand why SJ's would want to attend a church that focuses on structure, tradition, creeds and solemnity. And I understand why people with an Extroverted Sensing function might feel most comfortable in a church with incense or candles or raised hands or spectacular music. It makes sense to be in a congregation where we feel like we "fit" and we're best able to feel connected to God. And maybe we don't need to worry so much about visitors because they can always keep looking till they find a church that fits for them. But what about our kids? I have Extroverted Feeling daughters who love when we clap along to songs or otherwise get into the music, but that really doesn't happen so often in our mostly SJ church. 

And I think it's important that even in an SJ church, people are encouraged to stretch a little, try new things, and find other ways to connect to God that might not feel as natural or as comfortable, but that might still enable them to have a better sense of God that goes beyond their previous understanding. 

"When we are taking in information through intuition, we remain in the present reality of the senses only long enough to receive enough sensory data to make a leap into the possibilities associated with those data. While sensing focuses on the present and uses memories of the past to provide further information, intuition focuses on the future. Intuition explores the big pictures, the overall theme, the patterns that are present, the connections between the pieces of data received, and, above all, the meaning of the information."

"Each of us uses both ways of taking in information, but most of us prefer one over the other. People who prefer sensing tend to be practical, factual, and concrete, concerned with the details of each tree rather than studying the forest as a whole. People who prefer intuition tend to be abstract and to think globally. They are concerned with the pattern of the forest rather than the characteristics of the individual trees."

I found the first paragraph to be very helpful. (I included the second because it's also a good description, though I'd understood that part before.) When I try to explain the different between S and N to people, I often find myself saying that S's are more detail oriented and N's are more big picture oriented. But what confuses me is that I notice details, too. In fact, sometimes specific details are exactly what give me my insights. So I've been confused about the differences in detail gathering between S's and N's. I think Baab delineated the differences well in this paragraph. 

"The physical surroundings in their house of worship may be quite important to sensing types." 

This is so true of Rob, not just with worship but with schools, too. Every time we visit a university campus he doesn't care what programs they offer or what type of classes he could take, what matters is how old and cool the buildings are. He struggles with the fact that our congregation meets in a building that was built in the 60s or 70s. He's much rather be downtown in something old and funky. 

"When [Jung] uses the word feeling, he is referring to a decision making pattern that involves concern for human values and that strives primarily for relational harmony. It is decision making based on deeply held values. In contrast, the word "thinking" involves making decisions with a concern for logica nd truth. Thinking is more detached and objective than feeling."

"Thinking involves a concern for logic and truth; feeling involves a concern for values and harmony." 

I'm very clear on what thinking means. I get foggy when it comes to feeling. Or, more to the point, I get foggy when it comes to Rob. I would say that he makes decisions based on values and truth. He has very strongly held values and he sees them as core truths. So is he a T or is he an F? When he takes tests he often comes out right in the middle. I think he's an F when it comes to the values bit but a T when it comes to the relational harmony bit. 

Oh, and for the sake of the feeling folks here, let me add this quote:

"Logical analysis alone doesn't guarantee accuracy." 

You can use that against us the next time you're in an argument with a T.  ;-)

"In congregations the thinking-feeling preference may be the most explosive and painful aspect of psychological type differences. It can be difficult for people who prefer thinking and feeling to respect each other. The feeling type proposes an action. The thinking type asks, 'Why?' The feeling type thinks, 'If she really respected me, she wouldn't need to hear reasons.' The thinking type, meanwhile, is wondering, 'If he can't articulate his reasons, can this really be a good idea?'"

I thought this was a great insight. If we knew that we were T's and F's talking, then perhaps we could talk this out and satisfy either side in the end. But without knowing the metathinking that's going on, it's really hard to tease out what's really happening in a situation.

"Perceiving refers to a preference for keeping things open, for continuing to remain in a perceptive attitude. People who prefer perceiving often come across as flexible and easy-going. Judging refers to a preference for making decisions over taking in more information. People who prefer judging often seem to be organized, structured, committed to deadlines, and aware of schedules." 

I thought this was a nice description of J and P. 

Whew! That's plenty of quotes for now, and it doesn't even hit upon the bit of reading I did today. That was all from previous reading. I'll try to splash some more quotes up here soon. 

Why study personality types?

I'm reading a really fantastic book about personality types called Personality Type in Congregations: How to Work with Others More Effectively, by Lynne M. Baab. A lot of what the author writes about could really be applied in any organizational situation, not just within church congregations, but she does address prayer and a few other particularly spiritual activities (such as worship) that are more specific to a faith based community.  

Oftentimes when I bring up personality typing (especially within our congregation) I basically get pooh poohed. The attitude is either that it's all a bunch of hocus pocus and mumbo jumbo, or there's no real value in the study and, if anything, it will just be used against people. Baab did a great job of explaining that just the opposite is true. She says there are three paths to growth relating to personality types: self-acceptance, learning to use all functions, and learning to "access the shadow" (which deals with the way we behave/think under extreme stress).

The moment of self-acceptance comes when you discover your personality type and suddenly you realize that your constant fight to be one way or another is because you're not naturally that way. God made you to be a certain way and you may feel like your parents, or your church, or your work place has expected something very different of you, something that you found it depressing to be unable to achieve. When you realize that you're introverted because that's how God made you, or that there's value in being a dreamer, or that basing your decisions on feelings isn't wrong or right, it's just how you are... then you're able to accept who you are and how you naturally operate, irregardless of what others' expectations might be. (You might also have a better sense of why they are expecting something from you that's always seemed so foreign. It's because that other person has an opposite personality trait in that area so they'd always thought they were expecting something natural of you, not realizing it was natural to them, but not to you.) Once you discover your personality type, you'll probably have a better understanding of yourself and others. This will help you to be more accepting of others when they decide or act differently than you do. But there's a lot more value to personality typing than just awareness. The next step involves growth.

Each of the functions of the Meyers-Briggs personality type system are amoral. That means they're neither right or wrong, they're just different. And there are times when one type might be more appropriate than another. For example, if someone has just gone through a traumatic or sad experience, it's unlikely that they want a Thinking type person to come up and logically explain to them the situation that they're in. What they really need then is a Feeling type person who will empathize with them in their time of need (or a Thinking person who has learned to use their Feeling side). One of the goals of those studying personality typing should not only be to

learn more about your own personality type, and to learn to value and appreciate other personality types, but also to find ways to grow in areas where you have a weakness. Not only does this help us to be more well rounded people, but we may find the stretch into an area that doesn't come naturally to us to be an exciting challenge that helps us grow closer to God (as we learn to rely more upon him in our areas of weakness) and others (as we learn to relate to people in a way that might not be as natural for us, but which helps us to connect to them more deeply). I think this is an important aspect of personality study that is often overlooked and Baab does a great job of giving examples of how people have grown in areas that were previously foreign and uncomfortable to them (like learning to be a listener when you're naturally more of a talker). 

Baab describes the third value of studying personality types as "accessing the shadow." When we are in periods of great stress, we often do our best to face the problem with our usual strengths. When those fail, or when we feel like we've exhausted our ability to deal with the situation, what often happens is that we revert to going the direct opposite route. The example that the author gives of herself was that under stress, she started to exhibit extroverted sensing behaviors (even though she's introverted and intuitive). Healthy extroverted sensing behaviors involve an enthusiastic, joyful embracing of sensory experience. But when we're in these stress modes and flip into using our "inferior function" (which means the opposite of how we'd normally behave) we end up embracing the worst possible form of that function. So in this case, instead of joyfully embracing of something sensory, she depressedly fell into a habit of over-eating. This state of relying upon our inferior function (in other words, relying on the areas we're weakest in and do the worst at) is called being "in the grip." Baab describes it as "vivid evidence that sin's power reaches deep into our souls." During these times, emotions are exposed that we'd managed to hide before. We continue to try to hide them with our inferior functioning, but Baabs encourages growth at this stage by facing our obsessions, mistakes, and failures and learning from them rather than allowing them to lead us down the road of poor behaviors. 

I've considered these first two values of studying personality type for quite awhile now, but the inferior functioning is something I've read about before, but not really delved into deeply. The description of the inferior functioning of an ISTJ (impulsiveness and catastrophizing) fit Nathan's recent behavior to a tee, though. That nearly gave me whiplash when I read it -- definitely catching my attention. Suddenly it makes a little more sense to me why my son is behaving so very differently than he's ever behaved in his life. Something in his life has caused severe stress and his only means of dealing with it has been this radical change in behavior. Baab suggests some means of helping a person get out of "the grip" but I've also noticed there's a book just on that topic. It's something I'll definitely be looking into. 

Understanding personality type is certainly not a panacea, but I've repeatedly seen situations in which it either has helped, or it could have helped if it was taken into consideration. Personality is, by definition, an incredibly personal thing. Some people don't like to be pigeon-holed or scrutinized. Others get a bit too gung ho and run with the beginning of the idea without really understanding how typing can be used beneficially and they end up doing more harm than good. I think it's helped me to be more sensitive and understanding of others. Just like any tool, typing can be helpful or harmful. It's a tool that I've found great value in, both in understanding myself and the actions and beliefs of those around me. Baab is a good writer and does a great job of giving specific benefits and goals of using personality typing within congregations. 

What Am I Afraid Of?

I got to thinking yesterday, " What am I afraid of?" It's a long story on how I came to that question. Suffice it to say that the combination of my sister mentioning a life theory of fear vs. love, combined with a bus ride yesterday with a bunch of rather mean 8th graders got me first to wondering what they fear, which led me to wondering what I fear.  I took some time out to think about that question. I think there are specific fears for various situations, but one overriding fear that seems to dominate over all the rest is the fear of failure. What if I mess up? What if I screw up so bad that someone else has to deal with it?

I thought of death or of being in a situation like Joanne, where she had a debilitating stroke several months ago and is taking slow steps down the long road of recovery. But neither of those things scared me. What scared me was that if I died, someone else would have to come in and go through the piles of stuff I haven't gotten through in my office. (It also makes me very sad to think of what my family would go through. But that's because of my love for them, not for any fear of what they'll experience. I know they'll find a way to carry on without me, even if they miss me a great deal.) I fear messing up when I'm talking to someone - of saying the wrong thing or not saying what I want to say in a way that the other person will comprehend in the way I want it to be comprehended. I guess when I boil it all down, I fear that I'll get it wrong. I fear that I'll do or say something that impacts someone else negatively, in a way that they'll be left cleaning up my mess whether it's physical or emotional or maybe even spiritual.

My fear might seem very silly to you, but it's very poignant to me. It's pretty central to how I think about myself. I am a person who orders things. You might not think that from looking at my house or my back yard. But when I write a newsletter, I'm not only organizing words into a coherent and hopefully interesting portrayal of information, but I'm also organizing the blocks of text and images on the page. When I do the book keeping for the church or for CFHL, I'm ordering numbers - moving them in and out and keeping them all lined up in a row as I do so. I organize my kids schedules. I order the morning routine so that the kids can sleep as late as possible and still get to the bus stop on time. I take in and organize information for the kids school and send it out to the PTO and other parents. I take in, I rearrange and organize and then I send out. I wish I had a more ordered house and yard, but that one gets away from me, which I'm sure is why it comes at me in my fears.

So yesterday, while I was lying on my bed thinking this stuff through, I managed to ironically do what I feared. I messed up. Nathan had a 3:30 doctor's appointment and I entirely forgot about it. I had remembered it yesterday morning. But by afternoon I was exhausted and the appointment wasn't on my radar. When the office called to see what the deal was, I lost it. I broke down. That was it. I'd messed up. My greatest fear came rushing over me to overwhelm me.

It hasn't left me there. I've tried to walk myself through some of the things that I have been encouraging Nathan to do when he hits something that throws him for a loop. I've tried to look at the bigger picture. Sure, this happened and I screwed up, but what will that matter a year from now? Five years from now? It won't. It really wasn't that big of a deal. But it felt like a big deal. I'm still holding on to that feeling of it being a big deal, even if it wasn't.

I'm at Everyday Joe's right now sipping on my new favorite tea, Margaret's Hope Darjeeling, and reading Resident Aliens (Hauerwas and Willimon) and I hit this bit, "True freedom arises, not in our loud assertion of our individual independence, but in our being linked to a true story, which enables us to say yes and no. Our worst sins arise as our response to our innate human fear that we are a nobody." That, combined with several other bits that I'll probably share in another post, helped me to see that looking at the long term regarding my mess up wasn't really looking at the entire big picture. There's more that, if I really want to heal from this, I need to do. I need to allow for grace.

When I missed Nathan's appointment yesterday I was frustrated with Rob because he just didn't seem to get it. He didn't get that this was a major mess up. He wasn't as upset as I thought he should have been about it. He didn't jump in to be my superman, fixing the screw up that I had made. But looking back on it, I see it a different way now. Rob saw the situation with more grace than I did. He knows it's not the end of the world and he treated the situation as it deserves. He didn't get bent out of shape. He shrugged it off and moved on. Granted, it wasn't his mess up. But even though it was mine, that doesn't mean I need to hold on to it.

Jackie, Nathan's doctor, also dealt with me with grace. She talked to me on the phone about how Nathan's doing and she got us set up with an appointment on Wednesday next week. Though I'm sure it was frustrating for her to wait for us and we didn't show, she didn't express any anger with me. She didn't even show her frustration. She dealt with the situation and moved on, according it only what it required and not pouring extra meaning into the event that it didn't have.

And God forgives my screw up. When I stand before him at the end times, he's not going to pull out his notebook and say, "Dang, Meg. What's this about you forgetting that doctor's appointment?" There are much deeper heart issues that he's concerned with, and me messing up isn't a central issue. He knows I'm human. He knows I'm fallen. A central issue is that I let my fear of messing up define me. I let my belief that I can hold it all together, and that if I don't I'm worthless, be a driving force in my life. That's the heart issue. That's what's important. And I can't let go of that belief until I start to see the grace that is being offered to me by those around me and accept that grace from them, most especially God's grace.

God hasn't set me on the planet with some directions and then nudged me out to do it or fail. He has set me on this planet and then he's put himself beside me. We walk together. Even when I forget to let him lead (He's the one that knows the way after all. He should be the one leading.) and I try to take over with my own map and my own agenda, he's still there beside me. He's committed himself to get me through this. Some would say he's covenanted himself. This is one of those footprints in the sand times and I can choose to let it reinforce my fears. Or I can acknowledge that now is when there's only that one set of footprints in the sand and they sure aren't mine. I can't do this on my own, but then again, I don't have to. Thank God.

Group personality and activity

Every group has its own personality. Philip Douglass wrote specifically about the personality of church groups in his book, "What Is Your Church's Personality: Discovering and Developing the Ministry Style of Your Church." Douglass is the first person that I know of who has assigned personality typing (He uses the MBTi.) to groups. And though it's generally not quite as clear cut as determining the personality of an individual, I think it is possible to generalize about a group of people and I think it's helpful to understand a group in this light. Just as when typing a person, there are advantages to knowing and understanding what strengths and weaknesses are natural and to be expected from a body of people.

Of course, the ideal (in my opinion) in any group is to have such a diversity of personalities represented that the group winds up right in the middle of all 4 of the Myers Briggs indicators. This would give the group access to all of the strengths that are described by personality typing. But I have yet to find such a group. What generally happens is that a leader, or a group of leaders, form the group initially. Their personalities dominate the group in the beginning phase. As the group grows, it is quite common for people with similar personalities to be drawn to the organization. The personality of the group, therefore, stays about the same.

Once in awhile, however, someone with a very different personality will join the group (either because they were hired to fulfill a position within the group - new pastor, new secretary, new principal, new admin assistant, or because they've stumbled upon the group - invited by a friend, joined along with a spouse whose personality does fit the group, etc.) and that causes tension. The group can go a few different ways at this point. When the new personality is in a position of leadership, there are often explosions within the group with the result that a chunk of people end up leaving. If the new personality is not a leader, they may eventually drift away, or they may hang on within the group but never feel like they quite fit in. It's a rare group that is faced with strongly different personalities and yet still manages to find a way to work together despite that. (One would think that in the church, this would be a common event. It is, after all, a core tenant of the gospel that Jesus brings unity where once there was enmity. Unfortunately, churches are full of humans and another core tenant of the gospel is that humans are bunch of selfish dorks.)

Lately, an aspect of group personality has been tick tocking around in my brain - activity. There's probably a better word for it, but that's what I've come up with so far. Maybe "method of activity" or "format of activity" or "mode of operation" would work better. Feel free to throw thoughts out there on what exactly I'm talking about. But the main idea is that groups do things. The PTO raises money for the school, encourages communication between staff and parents, etc. The garden club plants things, teaches gardening, and harvests. Churches worship, disciple, evangelize and fellowship. Every group, no matter how similar, probably approaches even similar tasks in different ways, reflecting the specific personality of that group.

Like I said, I'm just at the beginning of thinking about this, so I'm sure my diagram could use a lot more arrows and activity types, but this is what I've been fiddling around with so far.


I'm sure there are inactive groups, but those are essentially dead, so I didn't even go down that road. Among active groups, I figure there are some that plan out exactly what they're going to do before they do it. Any fundraising group needs to do that or they're not going to make enough money to blow a bubble at. But there are other groups that just kinda take what gets thrown at them and they deal with issues as they come. They're more reactive than proactive. (Actually, the fundraising example is very specific. What I'm really trying to focus on is the bigger picture - group goals, vision, purpose, etc. So when I give specific examples, I don't mean to. They just show how I'm still just thinking all this through.) The reactive group may have a general sense of its purpose, but it approaches activity within that purpose more from an intuitive perspective than a scripted or planned point of view.

I suppose most groups are a mixture of these methods, but I think every group falls into one of these categories more often than the other by design. Even the most well scripted PTO can suddenly be faced with something unexpected that they have to deal with. But their intention is to be a completely prescribed group. While a girl scout group leader might only plan from meeting to meeting without having any overarching organization or goal for the year.

There is value from being organized and there is value in being flexible (S vs. N) and any group that is too much of one or the other risks being so straight-jacketed that they can't bend to accommodate new situations or so loosey-goosey that things only get done haphazardly. (The "traditional church" vs. the "emerging church" come to mind, although I think even emerging churches are often more scripted than they'd like to admit. The least scripted church I've ever known was a house church in San Francisco. Though they had traditions and overarching goals for periods of time, they were ultimately flexible and ... slowly dynamic, for lack of a better term.)

Given that we're talking about groups, and groups generally have leaders, I think the top-down effects of being too far one way or the other are that either the group is shoehorned into following the style, format and goals of the leader, or they're left without any leadership at all and everyone just does what is right in their own eyes. I think ideally the leadership would provide a blend of direction/goals and leeway for people to innovate and achieve the goals in a way that works for them. I suppose what I'm saying is that leadership should help to provide a framework that will help the group achieve their goals in way that's in keeping with the personality of the group.

Random vs. Organic vs. Programmatic

A group with an unintentional framework and a random means of accomplishing tasks, still accomplishes some tasks. But it can be so hit or miss that the group is unreliable and though maybe not ineffective, at least untrustworthy.

A group that is programmatic can achieve quite a bit, especially on paper. Schools are programmatic. They have programs of coursework that need to be completed in order to progress either to another level or to graduation. Large churches tend to be programmatic. People that I know who attend large churches can often list several of the programs that the church provides. Hierarchy is important in a setting like this. A clear cut pyramid of authority helps the programmatical structure to run smoothly.

A group that is organic often doesn't look nearly as accomplished as a group that is programmatic. In order to get a sense of the achievements or growth within an organic group you often have to stick around awhile and see it in action to "get" what's happening. End results are often not as clear cut in an organic group as compared to a programmatic group where programs have very clear beginning and end points and ending is often seen as a success irregardless of what the individuals within the program got out of it. People that I know who attend more organic churches can often list several, if not all, of the group members by name. The group often operates more like a bunch of cells in a body. Everyone knows what their own roll is and when they get the word, they move into position and set to work. Leadership in this case is often a matter of communicating a need from one part of the body to another so that those who can fix the problem are alerted to move into action. A lot of the training for action happens in one-on-one relationships or in small groups. 

As a T, I think I gravitate toward programmatic formats as they're often a compact and intensified means of learning or doing something. Attending the University of Michigan suited me to a T because the size of the institution meant they could afford a plethora of programs that I could partake in. But what I've learned in the last couple of decades is that organic formats often take an idea or an action to a much deeper level. For example, a programmed week of intensive building at an orphanage in Mexico can mean a new and important building that will affect many lives. But an organic relationship with an orphan from Mexico can intimately change both their life and mine for the rest of our lives. Both are good things. They're just different in form and function.

Programmatic formats are much easier to advertise, much easier to quantify, and much easier to scale. Organic formats are often in such small groups that they aren't advertised at all, they're hard to quantify, especially if you're not in the group and don't have a handle on what exactly the group has been doing or learning or talking about, and they're much harder to scale... and once they're scaled large they often turn into programs.

I should add that just because something is programmatic doesn't mean that it's guaranteed to be compact or intensified. There are long programs and there are programs that I've been involved in that were nothing but a waste of time. Nothing got done, nothing got learned, nothing happened but lots of hot air got blown around and participants were largely idle or just going through the motions. And just because something is organic doesn't mean that it's going to be deeper or better integrated. Sometimes organic situations feel like you're just spinning your wheels or biding time.

But I do think that sometimes certainly personalities fit better with better styles. As I said before, the T in me loves programs for fast and intense learning. But the I in me has learned to appreciate the connectivity and personal interaction of organic systems. I don't know where F's fall, and I suspect that F's and P's could both add categories to my little chart above that haven't even crossed my mind.

I think it's important to remember that these styles aren't necessarily better or worse, they're just different. They have their own strengths and weaknesses. But I do think it's important to be aware of the different styles and to see that they do both have value.

Introverted Church: A Matter of Motivation Redux

http://www.introvertedchurch.com/2010/08/matter-of-motivation-redux.html
Adam McHugh (author of Introverts in the Church) just reposted this. Here's a quick quote:

It's not that we [introverts] don't like people or are anti-social or standoffish, it's that it actually feels better for us to be alone sometimes.

Paul - the life of the party?

"You can measure leaders by the number and the quality of their friends. Judged by that measuring rod, Paul had a genius for friendship.  He was essentially a gregarious man." -- J. Oswald Sanders, Spiritual Leadership (Chicago, Moody Press, 1967)

Thoughts on Sanders' measurement system? Do you think of Paul as a gregarious man?

Spiritual Gifts - An Intro.

I'm a project person. I like to have a goal in mind so I know what I'm working toward.  Since I'm finished with the Bible study on the environment, I thought it was time to move on to a new topic. This time around I thought I'd take a gander at spiritual gifts.

I started out by doing an online search on spiritual gifts and I ended up with a bunch of tests. The consensus seemed to be that I have gifts in administration, teaching and writing.  ... I'm not making that up -- writing.  (Pssst, if you can find a verse in the Bible regarding the gift of writing, I'd love to see it.)

What struck me (as I pointed out in the post that I linked to above) is that I could have skipped the spiritual gifts tests and just looked at a description of an INTJ to tell you what my gifts were.  *scratches head*  The Holy Spirit seems to prefer giving gifts that match a person's Meyers Briggs type.  Isn't that convenient.

So my goals in this study are shaping up to be: 1) What the heck is a spiritual gift and why do we call it that? 2) What's the difference between a spiritual gift and a personality trait? 3) and my favorite topic (just ask the gals in my Bible study) how are we to be using these gifts for the benefit of one another?

So far all I've written is an intro.  But I thought I'd share it here in case anyone would like to get a head-start on picking my writing apart.  ... Don't be intimidated by the fact that writing is one of my spiritual gifts. ;-)


The phrase “spiritual gifts” is fairly common in Christian circles today. It’s not a common phrase in the Bible, however. In the NIV and KJV translations of the Bible, this combination of words only appears 4 times, and three of those times the word “gift” doesn’t actually appear in the original Greek.  Only Romans 1:11 puts the two words “spiritual” (pneumatikos) and “gift” (charisma) together.  On the other hand, the idea of gifts from God is quite frequent in the Bible and encompasses quite a bit more than we usually associate with the term “spiritual gifts.”

Labeling some gifts differently than others and having workbooks and online tests that help you to determine your spiritual gifts set these gifts apart as being quite different than the other gifts that God gives. The way we talk about them also tends to put the focus on us rather than on God.  “What are my spiritual gifts?” or “How should I be using my spiritual gift?” Contrast that with, “What gifts has God given to me?” or “How does God expect me to use these gifts within the church?”  In the first two examples we have ownership and authority to control our gifts as we please. In the second two we are entrusted with something from God, and we have a responsibility to use what has been given to us for a purpose other than our own.  I’d like to suggest that the second way of relating to gifts is more in keeping with what we find in Biblical texts.

(cartoon was snagged from this Grasping for the Wind page)

The Velvet Elvis is an SJ.

While reading Dan Kimball's book, I grew increasingly aware that what the Emergent folk were pulling away from was an SJ mentality.  To be honest, I'm not sure yet what personality type they're pulling toward.  I suspect the toward has more to do with the personality types of the Emergent leaders than the personality types of the so-called "emerging generation" or "emerging culture."  (NF, perhaps?)

I started reading Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis today.  I wasn't even 4 pages into the book when Bell stated this point exactly -- except that he doesn't at all attribute it to a difference in personalities. 

Here's what often happens: Somebody comes along who has a fresh perspective on the Christian faith. People are inspired. A movement starts. Faith that was stale and dying is now alive.  But then the pioneer of the movement -- the painter -- dies and the followers stop exploring.  They mistakenly assume that their leader's words were the last ones on the subject, and they freeze their leader's words.  They forget that as that innovator was doing this or her part to move things along, that person was merely taking part in the discussion that will go on forever.  And so in their commitment to what so-and-so said and did, they end up freezing the faith. -- Rob Bell, in Velvet Elvis

SJ's are the protectors.  They value tradition and continuity.  They are the ones who remind us how things have been done in the past, who help us remember and adhere to the rules, and who help us to stay on the pathway that we set out upon.  It makes sense that they "freeze" the faith at a point because that's the gift/personality that God has bestowed upon them.  Without them it would be easy for us to lose focus and wander away from the goals that we set out toward. 

NF's are visionaries.  Their gift/personality type is one that sees new possibilities, new ways of looking at things, new means of approaching old topics.  

NT's are intellectuals.  They analyze the ways things have been done and how they might be done better.  They innovate and challenge the status quo.  

All of these (and SP's as well, of course -- people the Emerging churches are often particularly targeting) are important and valuable perspectives and all are needed to keep a balance.  When a church is made up of all SJ's then yes, it will seem very dry and boring and dead.  It might not seem dead to the SJ's themselves, but to all of the other personality types that are biding their time in that congregation, it could be quite miserable. But when a church is made up all of NF's, anything goes.  You might never know where you'll be from one week to another (theologically, emotionally, etc.) and that might be exciting and refreshing for NF's, but for other personality types, that could be quite unsettling and even disturbing.  

God made us with different personality types so that we can learn from each other, so we can balance each other, so that we can guide one another and so that we can love one another despite our differences.  We need to learn to listen to each other rather than advocating one personality type over and above another. 

Soul Types: Matching Your Personality and Spiritual Path

http://barefootmeg.multiply.com/reviews/item/31
In the book Soul Types, the authors, Hirsh and Kise, link personality types and preferred methods of pursuing spirituality. Click through on the link above to read Meg's review.

The Emerging Church: Vintage Christianity for New Generations (a book review)

http://barefootmeg.multiply.com/reviews/item/30
Click through to see my review of Dan Kimball's book on the Emerging Church.

Sermon styles

While looking for a pastor, one of the things you start thinking about is sermons. Though sermons weren't a definitive factor in choosing a candidate for our church, I do believe that a pastor's sermons can tell you a lot about the person. And I realized that sermons can vary on more than just a good or bad spectrum.  There are different styles of preaching that not only reflect upon the personality of the preacher but that can be received in very different ways by the congregation as well. 

Pastors who value feelings are more likely to include stories that appeal to the listener's emotions. Pastors who value knowledge are more likely to refer to metaphors that conceptualize a point. Neither means of communication is necessarily better or worse than the other.  They're simply different. That said, I believe some people resonate more deeply with styles of preaching that fit their own personalities more closely.  The intellectual may walk away from a very good sermon that was full of stories thinking, "That was OK, but he mostly just told stories."  While the person who values feelings more highly might walk away from the same sermon thinking, "Wow!  I finally understand God in a way that I never have before.  That was a fantastic sermon!"   Likewise, the intellectual may hear a very organized, detailed, point-by-point sermon and think, "I could really connect with that.  That was well laid out and argued."  Whereas the feeling person slept through the sermon because they found it to be dry and lifeless.  Both sermons might have had great things to say, including valuable truths that would help a person in life, but if they weren't relayed in a way that the people could connect with, they might go in one ear and out the other. 

This, I believe, is one reason why certain types of people are drawn to certain types of churches.  Philip Douglass studied this in detail in his book, What is Your Church's Personality?: Discovering and Developing the Ministry Style of Your Church (which I haven't read yet, but it's on my "to read" list). After studying churches specifically in the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) he determined that 80% of the churches in the PCA were either ISTJ/ESTJ (which he calls "Organizer" churches) or ISFJ/ESFJ (which he calls "Fellowship" churches) in personality (and the people both leading and members in these churches were often also predominantly these personality types.  This holds true in our church where our two elders are ESTJ and ESFJ and our incoming pastor is an ESFJ.  I'm an anomaly as an INTJ as is Rob as an ESTP.)   ... Wow, I'm rather digressing here.  I'll have to tackle this topic again in another post.  Back to sermons....

There were essentially three styles of sermon that I came across in the many sermons that I listened to from our candidates: 1) Loud, 2) Lectured, and 3) Personal. The Loud style reminded me very much of our youth group pastor when I was at a church in Colorado Springs. He had very simple messages to get across, but he spoke very loudly and with great enthusiasm that gave his simple messages more grandeur than they otherwise would have carried.  As an intellectual teenage brat, I didn't think much of them.  I discovered during our pastoral search that I still don't think very much of them.   The Lectured style is what I predominantly hear from the pulpit.  It tends to proceed according to a series of points that, if you were to take notes, would fit neatly into an outline format. It addresses the Bible very much as a professor would address a textbook. The Personal style seems to center around the preacher's interaction with the Biblical text. The speaker often begins from a point of "When I first looked at this, this is what struck me."  Preachers using this style often delve deeply into context (historical, social, theological and personal).

I think this Personal style is the tack Dan Kimball is calling for in his descriptions of preaching in his book on the Emerging Church.  And I find that I agree with him that it's an engaging and relational style of preaching that I find really refreshing.  Ironically, when I described it to my mom, especially Kimball's suggestion that pastor's need to lose the "fill in the blanks" sermon notes, my mom looked shocked and cried out, "But I love filling in the blanks!"  Like I said earlier, different preaching styles appeal to different personality types differently.  It's not good or bad, it's just different. 

Trust

Our church has recently gone through a  bit of turmoil as our last pastor, well past 70 and exhibiting symptoms of Alzheimers, left in a huff when it was suggested that the church should hire a part time assistant pastor who would take over the preaching responsibilities and would eventually become the head pastor when he finally decided to retire.  That left our little church (40 people on a good day -- including kids) looking for a new shepherd for our flock. 

So a pastoral search committee was appointed -- 5 guys (all Ss) and me (an N).   (More on S/N here.)  We met with 6 candidates either in person or on the phone and it was absolutely fascinating the differing reactions we had.  Though in general we had similar responses to candidates, there were occasions when I wanted to stop and say, "Wait.  Were you and I in the same meeting just now?"  It became very clear to me that the differences in our perceptions regarding the candidates fell right along S/N lines.  While I would be reading between the lines and getting an overall sense of how our future as a church would look with such-and-such candidate, the guys would all be listening to very specific details in what the candidate said.  They were also much more likely to consider what I think of was resume-details -- how much experience does this person have, where has he worked before, etc.

The day finally came to sit down and figure out who we, as a committee, wanted to pursue, and who we felt wouldn't be a good fit.   It was a very tense meeting and one in which these differences became utterly apparent.  While I had read between the lines and decided that one candidate was an excellent match, they had looked at the specifics and seen that he was a no go.  And on the flip side, several of them were very gung-ho for a fella who, when I pictured where he'd take the church, in my opinion would have had a great honeymoon with us and then the relational issues would begin.  

As we sat around the coffee table giving our pro's and con's for various candidates, we could have shouted, argued, fussed and fumed about our positions.  It could have torn us apart as a committee and it could have prolonged our search and perhaps led us to call someone who would be a very poor match for our congregation.  But instead, it became very clear that despite our strong stances on candidates, we were committed to agreeing.  

None of us articulated this at the time, and I don't know that we even thought it through while in the midst of it, but our actions were clear.  As strongly as we felt, we all knew that this was not worth risking disunity over. 

As well as the meeting went, it was still incredibly hard and when I came home afterwards I risked waking my kids up just because I needed the hugs.  

We had several meetings after that point, some with our culled through set of candidates and some without, and we eventually unanimously and wholeheartedly agreed on a guy who, I feel strongly was Providentially appointed to join us (and he, his family, and his current church even agree on this).   He'll be arriving in September as our full time pastor. 

Looking back, what is remarkable is not that we found a guy in only 7 months, nor that he's as excited about coming as we are about having him.  What utterly amazes me is that the folks in that search committee, despite strong differences of opinion, with every reason to distrust, chose rather to believe that we are a body -- the body of Christ.  We recognize that the harmony and growth of that body depends upon us each, on an individual level, just as the health of a physical body depends upon the working together and growth of the individual cells.  We will grow together or we will wither apart.  

Through this time of trial, we have chosen to grow together. 

Soul Types - INTJ

My sister has started to give me personality type related books for Christmas.  The most recent one she gave me is called Soul Types by Sandra Krebs Hirsh and Jane A. G. Kise. The book divides people into 4 over all soul types and then breaks each of those down into two smaller subsets:

Sensing

- Extroverted Sensing (ESTP, ESFP): The Active Spiritual Path

- Introverted Sensing (ISTJ, ISFJ): The Time-Honored Spiritual Path

Intuitive

- Extraverted Intuition (ENTP, ENFP): The Catalytic Spiritual Path

- Introverted Intuition (INTJ, INFJ): The Illuminating Spiritual Path

Thinking

- Extraverted Thinking (ESTJ, ENTJ): The Analytical Spiritual Path

- Introverted Thinking (ISTP, INTP): The Conceptual Spiritual Path  

Feeling

- Extraverted Feeling (ESFJ, ENFJ): The Community-Oriented Spiritual Path

- Introverted Feeling (ISFP, INFP): The Personal Spiritual Path

Though not everything she said about INTJ's fit with my natural tendencies, many did  (not just in terms of spirituality, but in other areas as well).  I thought I'd post a few excerpts that I think describe me:

"Their paths reflect a desire to learn, know, and work out their own spiritual philosophy. Often they are most interested in exploring big questions significant to their worldview and working out their own answers, studying in depth until they reach a solid understanding."  (p. 121)

This is in stark contrast to those who hear something from an "expert" and fall for it hook, line and sinker.  I know people like that, but that is definitely, certainly, absolutely and positively not me. Although I may come to agree with something that "experts" have written, it is only because I have done copious amounts of study on my own and have decided that the "experts" did a decent job.  That said, I'm not above adding notes and corrections to what an "expert" has said.  (Well, except Jesus.  I don't know that I've ever corrected him.  He rocks.)

Here's more along a similar vein:

"While Introverted Intuitive types enjoy listening to qualified experts or participating in discussions, if they need answers to a particular question, they are likely to go to a library or bookstore, read several sources, then come to their own conclusions.  They also enjoy in-depth study of a variety of topics, retreating with a stack of books to an inspiring place to indulge in the luxury of spending time with intellectual explorations that feed the soul." p. 124-125)

This is so me... and so not Rob.  Rob likes to take a passage of Scripture, perhaps even just one little verse, and sit and think on it.  He'll repeat it and meditate on it and underline it and read it again.  But doing that would drive me absolutely batty (more so than I already am).  Reading something once is enough for me.  I want to move on and see how it fits in context.  Better yet, I want to do a study on a greater theme and see how the bits and pieces and details fit together to create a cogent whole that I can them fit into some pleasing metaphors or guiding principles.  

"Introverted Intuitive types often pursue study for the purpose of designing or planning educational materials or presentations that will help others deepen their beliefs."  (p. 125)

OMG. That has Meg written all over it.  I've worked on a devotional for years.  I've seen other people's devotionals and they're essentially just pretty bits of string tied into little bows.  There's no substance to them.  Of course, if someone else were to read what I've written, perhaps they'd think the same thing.  But writing them, that took all sorts of study and thinking and cud chewing.   That's what I love.  ... Hmmm, I think I've published the first chapter here on Multiply somewhere. Sure enough. (Ignore the dorky logo.  I just didn't want Multiply-Man standing there.)

I've also, more recently, been working on writing a Bible study.  We attend a fairly conservative church and though I tend to agree with the doctrine, the church's opinions in other areas (such as politics, the environment, and meat eating) tend to turn my stomach. (But I've willingly put myself into that congregation, so I don't make a big stink about it.  I just make occasional jabs and they all make occasional jabs back... all in good fun.  And having to relate to someone who agrees with them theologically but disagrees in other areas has been really eye-opening and paradigm shifting for some of them in a good way, imo.)  I've tried to suggest a systematized study of environmental issues and what the Bible has to say about them.  But the book I suggested was shot down faster than my dog can nab a squirrel.  So I decided that the only way to really address this issue in any way that as going to work with these folks, I'd have to write a Bible study.  They wouldn't hear anything an unknown (tree hugging) author said, but they'd listen if it came to them straight out of Scripture.

... Anyway, all that to say that I definitely fit into the soul type that wants to do research in order to educate others.  I think that also comes out in my interactions here on Multiply.  I'm often helping people figure out how to use the site or fix problems. 

Our spirituality is something that we think of as something deeply personal and unique to ourselves, but here I've been pegged by Sandra and Jane who don't even know me.  Whew!  That's a trip.