theology and personality
Posted by Paul | Filed under uncategorised
Musing on the last post quoting Jeremy Begbie, crystallised something that had been hanging around the back of my mind…
I don’t know if you’ve ever done the Myers-Briggs personality test. Probably yes, if you have spent long around the internet. One of the big personality differentiators in the Myers-Briggs model is intuition vs. sensing. This is basically about how we gather information. Roughly (very roughly), intuitive people like to look at the big picture, to see connections, and work down from there — fitting in details as appropriate. On the other hand, sensing people like to start for the nitty-gritty, the details and facts and work up from those. As wikipedia puts it, for sensing people ‘the meaning is in the data’; for intuitives, ‘the meaning is in how the data relates to the pattern or theory’.
It struck me that a lot of theological books (at least the sort that I read) show a tendency to go in one of these two directions. So, you get Jeremy Begbie emphasising that we use our imaginations to see webs of meaning and connections in the Bible that are not spelled out. Clearly, an intuitive approach. And you get people like Tom Wright who clearly works from a big picture point of view, with overarching visions that explain the details.
On the other hand, you get people who plumb into details, looking for the specific verse that supports a position. Who then build up their theology from these concrete beginnings. For whom the meaning is in the biblical data, not the webs of meaning.
OK, I was going to try, but I fear I’m not going to be able to do this in a balanced way. I can’t understand the sensing approach at all. I have no idea if that last paragraph would sound good to a sensing person or not. To me, such an approach becomes frustrating very quickly. I read books from that perspective and it’s all a bit CSI:Theology — going down into fine investigation, when I want to cry out, ‘Surely it’s clear from the big story? Can’t we start there?’ I feel that makes my point.
Personality comes out in other ways, I guess… I remember one review of a Tom Wright book asked why he is always after new ideas. Answer: that’s personality for you. For some of us, constraining ourselves to expressing things the same way is a bit stifling.
Anyway, I’m also a feeling type, so my reason for this post (as many others) is ‘lets make sure we find a way to get along’ 
I wonder how much theological friction comes down to personality difference? How much is because our styles don’t match? Or because we describe things differently and it all sounds a bit strange to others? Yes, I know there are often very important issues, so this isn’t a blanket comment, but bear with me as I sketch my big theory(!) What if sometimes they were style issues that got polarised and before we know it we’ve moved our tents far enough apart that we don’t have to talk any more?
I wonder how much theological friction comes down to personality difference? How much is because our styles don’t match? Or because we describe things differently and it all sounds a bit strange to others? Yes, I know there are often very important issues, so this isn’t a blanket comment, but bear with me as I sketch my big theory(!) What if sometimes they were style issues that got polarised and before we know it we’ve moved our tents far enough apart that we don’t have to talk any more?We need a church that works out how to value all giftings. In fact, we need individual churches that do this. I don’t think it is sufficient to have different streams/styles that are good for different types. We need to find a way to be true family. Maybe we need to make sure that our preaching/worship/etc. connects a some point for everyone? And to ensure that all types have an opportunity to serve in a way that plays to the way they are made?
At least, that’s how the big picture looks to me
Tags: church
imagination is required
Posted by Paul | Filed under uncategorised
From Jeremy Begbie’s Resounding Truth
… imagination is required…By imagination here I am speaking of the ability to perceive connections between things that are not spelled out, not immediately apparent on the surface… First and foremost, imagination of this sort should be applied to our reading of scripture. we need to live inside the world of these texts and inhabit them so deeply that we begin to recognise links, lines of association, and webs of meaning that may not always be laid out explicitly or at any length but that nevertheless give scripture its coherence, contours and overall directions.…similar imaginative skills need to be applied to our reading of the world through the doctrine we discover. Good doctrine jolts our perspectives and shakes up the way we view things; it invites us to perceive the world in a different way……a third way: we ask what it means to live in and live out this “reading of the world,” to ask how life could be (indeed, must be) different. … This demands imagination because, of course, the Bible does not spell out the details of Christian behaviour for all times… The church needs to improvise imaginatively…
Tags: imagination
A random walk over culture, art, christianity, etc. with occasional photographs...