In Hebrew the word for "face" is panim. Translated literally it is "faces." While this is not an uncommon feature of Hebrew grammar for other things as well, perhaps it can encourage us to look deeper at what we mean when we refer to the space between our ears that presents to the world our invisible thoughts, attitudes, feelings and words.
According to Dr. David Keirsey, clinical psychologist, historical research unveils a pattern of four "faces" of human personality, that up until relatively recently, was the default starting point for understanding human nature. Not until the late 19th Century did Freud and Pavlov point us toward defining people more by primal,natural instinct or environmental conditioning and nurture (Please Understand Me II, 22-26). Keirsey frames Myers-Briggs personality theory in the broader historical framework of philosophers, authors, and physicians from 340 B.C. through the late 19th Century that support the categorization of human personality into four broad types. While each one understandably argues for the four-part distinctions with different measurements and perspectives, there does seem to be a reliable pattern. Keirsey seeks to place himself in the stream of history, adding his own scientific observations that add to the cumulative understanding of the four personality types in the specific area of how they use words and use tools.
To clarify the difference let me use one of Keirsey's illustrations. Your temperament is like your hardware and your character is like your software. And that unchangeable temperament is a modification and specification of one of the four "faces." Thus you can't change your temperament, but only develop your character in harmony with it. Whereas Freud and Pavlov would say your hardware is singular: nature or nurture.
As I have discussed this theory of personality type with people, most are intrigued and can identify personally with having done some test and superficially relate to the concepts with a vague idea of the Galen's terminology (190 B.C.) of Sanguine, Melancholic, Choleric, and Phlegmatic. By the way, these are largely negative ways of describing and differentiating between the types because of which I try to avoid them. Myers-Briggs and Keirsey do a much better and balanced job at showing the positive aspects and best potentials of each type.
In a few of my discussions of type I have met a skepticism I feel I should also address here before moving forward. Some people's doubt or fear of personality type theory comes from possible association of this with fatalistic, new age astrology. I've heard two people tell me, "that sounds like the Zodiac." One respectable Christian suggested this is an area we should avoid because of the influence of secular-humanistic thought. I think both these perspectives teach me that there are people who will incorrectly associate personality type theories with anti or un-Christian philosophies or religious practices.
So far, I do not see any rationale connection or historical link between the science of human cognition and personality type and these other philosophies. There are superficial similarities, however, that I think most will see through if they study more deeply the methodology and observational aspects of personality theory. Here we need to think clearly and see the difference between association and causation. Just because some people say your character is determined by your birthday does not mean there could not be observable patterns of human behavior in the way our minds process information and make decisions. These objectors would most likely also be in the camp of those who discredit the entire field of psychology as un-scientific. But I would say that people's decisions, motivations, patterns of word usage ARE measurable, and thus scientific. Every field of science, including math and physics involve the devising of hypothetical theories that didn't originate with the Bible (E=MC2), but are nevertheless generally accepted today as morally neutral in essential character. But I digress.
Now, allow me to really freak you out with this theory:
If one fundamental aspect of human nature and character is this four-part type, delineated from Plato (Artisans, Idealists, Guardians, and Rationales) to Myers-Briggs (SP, NF, SJ, and NT), might the Bible's authors allude to it in some way, directly or indirectly?
In an attempt to win over Christian skeptics, Keirsey says yes. He uses several arguments in the appendix of his book already cited, one of which I would totally discredit with proper exegesis. But another one I would like for you to consider. Think about the narratives of the life of Christ written in the first century. There are four: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - each written by a distinct author for expressly evangelistic intent, but which nevertheless, can easily be paired with the four temperaments.
Matthew presents Jesus, in Plato's terminology, as a Guardian (SJ) - concerned with the fulfillment of the law and the teaching of correct doctrine. Matthew's gospel is thought to be patterned after the five-part Torah of the OT, framing Jesus' life around five major discourses.
Mark presents Jesus in the terminology of the Artisan (SP) - acting immediately and influentially, proving himself to truly be the Son of God to Jew and Gentile.
Luke presents Jesus in a characteristically Rationale (NT) fashion - writing a thoroughly researched and accurate account of the truth of who Jesus is and what Jesus has done.
John presents Jesus in fundamentally Idealist fashion (NF) - focusing on the divine identity of Jesus as the Word made flesh and demonstrating that interpersonal connection of Jesus to many in the conversations recorded in this gospel.
Thus no matter your personality type, manner of thinking, or pattern of values and behavior, Jesus personifies and embodies the best of humanity, revealing the true image of God in human nature. Most likely this is unintentional on the part of the Biblical authors, however, there are distinct parallels in the styles of writing and portrayals of Jesus in each of the gospels with each of the four aspects of human personality type. If you are interested in studying the four gospels more in-depth, I would recommend McIver's The Four Faces of Jesus whose book is pictured with this post.
Which of the four pictures of Jesus from the four gospels appeals to you most? What is it about Jesus that you admire most? Which of the gospels do you most readily turn to or prefer to read and why? How would you explain and differentiate the four pictures of Jesus in the New Testament? Do you think human temperament has anything to do with it, or any relevance to it?
0 comments:
Post a Comment