Science in Christian Perspective
Cognitive Style, North American
Values and the Body of Christ
MARY STEWART VAN LEEUWEN
Department of Psychology
York University Toronto, Ontario
From: JASA 27
(September 1975): 119-126.
Paper presented at the Christian Association for Psychological
Studies, Atlanta,
Georgia in April, 1974 and published in Journal of Psychology and Theology 2,
77 (1974)
The Reformation doctrine of "the Word and the Spirit," as outlined by Bernard Ramm, is related to various psychological models of cognitive and personal style. It is suggested that Witkin's distinction between "analytic" and "global" cognitive styles has its parallel in two differing religious styles, which are labeled "Word-oriented" and "Spirit-oriented." The implications of these two styles for the functioning of pastors, parishioners, and Christian workers are examined in detail.
A Personal Introduction
Depending on their ecclesiastical traditions and perhaps on their
social-educational
background, Christians have tended to view psychology in one of two
opposite ways:
at one extreme, it may be seen as an instrument of Satan, making
claims for itself
which properly belong to the Word and power of Cod, and to be avoided no less
stringently than the Adversary himself. At the other extreme, it
risks being viewed
as the panacea for all ills, with certain Christian counsellors and lay people
only slightly behind the world at large in their enthusiasm to mount whatever
current therapeutic bandwagon, after only the briefest of nods in the direction
of Biblically based inquiry into the assumptions of the particular technique in
vogue. Most of us would not fall neatly into either of these extremes-but it is
certainly the case that only recently have Christian social
scientists seriously
tackled the issue of "Christian theories of personality",
or "Christian
therapies" in a way that attempts to remain within the
conceptual mainstream
of psychology and at the same time stay true to Biblical principles regarding
the nature of man, his physical and social universe, the ultimate source of his
alienation, and the final means of his redemption. Examples of such
attempts include
work done by Collins, Tweedie, Narramore, and many persons contributing to the
proceedings of this association as well as to the recently instituted Journal
of Psychology and Theology.
Such bridge-building efforts have remained largely in the sphere of
clinical psychology-not
surprisingly, since the practice of pastoral counselling stands to lose or gain
by the influence of the broader clinical tradition. But aside from
the work done
by people like Malcolm Jeeves (Scientific Psychology and Christian Belief,
The
Scientific Enterprse and Christian Faith), Paul Meehl (What Then is Man?) and
Donald McKay (Christianity in a Mechanistic Universe) I know of no continuing
efforts to build similar bridges between Christianity and the
findings of academic
psychological research into the nature of man. Even the writing of Meehl, Jeeves,
and McKay (who is actually a neuroscientist rather than a
psychologist) is largely
on the philosophy of science level, and makes no attempt to relate
specific research
findings in psychology to the Biblical model of man. To be sure, we have plenty
to say to those academic psychologists like B. F. Skinner whose assumptions and
recommendations are blatantly at variance with the very core of
Biblical Christianity-but
we have had almost nothing to say of the many other research traditions whose
findings seem neither theologically black nor white, but merely some
as-yet-undetermined
shade of grey.
As a Christian of some three years, who was converted when within
months of getting
a Ph.D. in social psychology, I began-and remain-largely on my own
without Christian
role-models to suggest how to begin integrating my embryonic faith
with my discipline.
Like C. S. Lewis, I concluded for a time (in fact, for almost a year)
that I would
probably have to leave the academic life: my entire behaviourist upbringing was
beginning to ring more and more hollow in my mind and in my teaching,
and if the
determinist principles by
which I was trained were no longer sufficient in the light of
Scripture to explain
human behaviour and misbehaviour, then why remain a social psychologist? If, as
was the case, I was becoming less and less willing to tolerate the
ethical compromises
inherent in the experimental deception practised by social psychologists, what
was there left for me to do? It is only fair to say that such
conclusions reflected
much more the narrowness of my own graduate training than the actual
and potential
richness of my discipline, for when God in His grace and His own good
timing began
to point me to other than purely behaviourist research traditions, I
slowly began
to find my place as a Christian academic working in an avowedly
secular university.
What I have arrived at as a result is a principle that applies equally well to
my teaching and to my research -namely, that even in heresy much truth may lie,
and that it is my mandate as a Christian academic not only to demonstrate to my
colleagues and students that Christianity is a force to be reckoned
with by psychology,
but also the opposite-namely, that there are insights in the
psychological tradition
which are not only inadvertently scriptural, so to speak, but
insights which may
have escaped most Christians just because the current traditions and theology
of the church may have neglected them. In other words, it is my responsibility
not only to expose the inadequacies and inconsistencies of any model of man or
madness which is less than Biblical, but also to point out-to
colleagues, students,
and fellow-Christians alike, where the theory and research in
psychology are compatible
with the Biblical model of man, (I don't think, for instance, that Freud should
have to have told us that man's mind, redeemed or unredeemed, is
capable of tremendous
rationalization and self-deceit; the Psalmist, the Prophets, and the Apostles
have been telling us that all along.1 The real issue between
Christians and Freudians
centers not around the psychodynamic mechanisms Freud postulated, but as Paul
Tournier put it: "that having shown man to be infinitely more complex than
had been thought, Freud was then guilty of oversimplification in the
explanation
of man which he put forward, reducing the whole of his prodigious diversity to
a standardized, instinct-based schema,"2)
Having set the stage with the foregoing remarks, let it lie said that
my purpose
in this paper is to build one such modest bridge between what we might call the
Biblical and the secular psyehologies-between one set of intriguing findings in
the social/ developmental psychology tradition and a somewhat
neglected Biblical
doctrine of man as he functions in the Christian body of believers-a doctrine
that was lucidly expressed in the past by the Reformers, but which has, to my
knowledge, only recently been resurrected and reviewed. I am referring, on the
one hand, to the work of the cognitive style theorists on what they
call "global"
and "analytic" thinking, and on the other hand to the
Reformation Doctrine
of the Word and the Spirit as it applies to values and personal
expression within
the body of Christ.
The Word and the Spirit
Bernard Ramm, writing in His magazine3, tells us that "the great motto of
the Reformation in the sixteenth century was 'the Word and the
Spirit'. The concept
was not new, but the clarity with which it was understood and applied was. In the narrowest sense, Word meant the revealed and inspired
Holy Scripture; and correspondingly, the Spirit meant the Holy
Spirit. Both terms,
however suggest clusters of ideas. Word suggests the truth claims of
Christianity,
the meaning of the texts of Scripture, and the formulation of the contents of
Scripture into theology. It also includes the great historical
(space-time) acts
of revelation and redemption which are recorded in Scripture."
The "Word"
concept encapsules the rational, articulated, objective aspect of the redeemed
Christian life, whose lynch-pin is the unchanging standard of Scripture and its
rationally evolved theologies. On the other hand, Spirit, Ramm
suggests, "speaks
of the power of the Christian faith, of the richness of personal experience, of
faith, of trust, of hope, of the ability to transform life, and the entering of
the supernatural into our lives." It encompasses that aspect of
the redeemed
Christian life which is richly experiential, emotional, personal and
interpersonal,
embracing the supernatural quality of our ongoing dialogue with Cod
and with our
brothers and sisters in Christ.
It is my responsibility not only to expose the inadequacies and inconsistencies
of any model of man or madness which is less than Biblical, but also to point
out - to colleagues, students and fellow-Christians alike, where
theory and research
in psychology are compatible with the Biblical model of man.
Ramm goes on to point out (and I quote him extensively here, because I cannot
improve on him) that "a healthy, normative and powerful
Christianity is the
proper balance and relationship of Word and Spirit. However, the history of the
church reveals different periods when this balance was lost. Either
too much was
said of the Word at the expense of the Spirit, or too much of the Spirit at the
expense of the Word."
At times of intense doctrinal conflict, there is always the temptation to become so precise in our theology that we forget that the troth of Scripture needs the reinforcement and enlightment of the Spirit of truth. When such a high premium is placed on correct theology, there is the further temptation to define a Christian as the one who believes the right theology-a kind of theological intellectualism of sorts.
This, Ramm points out, is what can happen when the Church becomes
"Word-oriented"
at the expense of the spirit.
On the other hand,
at times of spiritual lethargy or powerlessness, or too much ecclesiatical 'overhead', some sort of movement of the Spirit sets in. It is a protest against 'dead orthodoxy' or 'lifeless liturgy' or powerless preaching or lack of a rich devotional life. Pietism arose in orthodox Lutheran Germany to protest the deadness of such an intensely theological understanding of Christianity. Methodism arose in England when the Anglican church was in need of such reform but seemed powerless to bring it to pass.
Pentecostalism emerged in the nineteenth century when Christianity was becoming more and more defined by denominationalism and when there were serious inroads of rationalism in the Christian church.
Ramm goes on to speak of the sensitive insight the Reformers had into
the interaction
between the Word and the Spirit: without the Word to inform us, we
would not accurately
recognize the nature of the Spirit. Furthermore, we would have no
yardstick against
which to "test the spirits"-not all of which are of God. But without
the work of the Spirit, we would he unable to recognize the Word as
coherent truth
which calls for obedience, not just intellectual apprehension. The Word without
the quickening power of the Spirit would be just another lawbook or
just another
historical record of the activities and beliefs of a particular
religious group.
Thus there is an inextricable interdependence between the two
functions, although
in the final analysis, the Reformers made the "Word"
precede "Spirit"
because the Word both circumscribes and validates the kind of
Spiritual experiences
we have; for no "spiritual experience" which is contrary to
the Word-no
matter how subjectively rich and real it may seem-is an experience of Truth. We
must allow our understanding of the Word to validate our experience
of the Spirit
and not vice-versa, and while the tendency of the church in the recent past may
have been to elevate the Word without regard to the Spirit, just as
clearly there
is a trend in parts of the church today to do the opposite: to see
the experiential
as self-validating, and to manipulate theology and the interpretation
of the Word
to accommodate it.
What Is a Healthy Balance?
Now Ramm has stated that both the needs and the errors of the corporate church
in history will influence whether the Word! Spirit interaction leans
in one direction
or the other, but that the optimal and scriptural situation is for the church
to have a healthy balance of both. With this, none of us are likely
to disagree.
My question as a psychologist is: do we achieve such a balance in practice by
assuming that every individual Christian is to he equally
"Word" oriented
and "Spirit" oriented, or do we, in fact, have within our
ranks Christians
who lean more to being "Word" specialists or "Word-gifted",
and others who are more inclined to be "Spirit" specialists
or "Spirit-gifted"-the
average of these two broad tendencies then promoting the needed balance in the
church as a whole? Do we, in fact, have "religious styles"
akin to the
"cognitive styles" of which I will speak presently, with individuals
ranged along a sort of bipolar continuum, pure "Word" types
at one extreme
and pure "Spirit" types at the other? Such a
"psycho-Christian"
model would further suggest that while either of these extremes would
be undesirable
and unscriptural, and while all of us ideally have elements of both
poles in our
functioning, still there is the tendency in some to lean somewhat more to the
"Word" aspects of Christianity, others to the "Spirit", and
still others, perhaps, to oscillate quite happily between the two
tendencies depending
on the situation and the need.
A Psychological Treatment
Having posed the question from the doctrinal point of view, let me
now jump back
to the purely psychological treatment of the issue. The so-called
"individual differences" tradition in psychology has approached the question
of "personal
styles" in a number of ways, all of which seem to share the central notion
that some people (or perhaps all people some of the time) function in
a way that
is characterized by objectivity, abstraction, and differentiation in
the intellectual
sphere, independence and achievement in the social sphere, self-containment and
relative stoicism in the emotional sphere. Other people (or again, perhaps all
people some of the time) function in a way that is characterized by intuition,
concreteness, and global perception in the intellectual sphere, interdependence
and affiliative concern in the social sphere, and freedom of expression in the
emotional sphere. It is a distinction made by many different writers using many
different terms, some working from a theoretical, others from an
empirical base. Jung4 distinguishes between people who proceed by reliance on
processes like thinking
and value-ordering, both of which require volition and judgment, and those who
proceed by sensation and intuition, both of which are involuntary and
non-rational. Piaget5 in his discussions of the intellectual development of children, refers
to the functions of accommodation and assimilation, the former referring to the
process of "seeing differences", the latter to the process
of "seeing
similarities", and Wadsworth6, one of his interpreters, suggests
that although
both processes occur in everybody, individuals may tend to be more
"assimilators"
or
acommodators" in intellectual style. David Bakan, in his Duality of Human
Existence7 draws upon a wide range of theory and observation and suggests that
all organisms manifest two opposing intellectual/ social tendencies, those of
agency and communion.
Agency refers to the existence of an organism as an individual, and communion she participation of the individual in some larger organism of which the individual is part . . . Agency manifests itself in the formation of separations, communion in she lack of separations. Agency manifests itself in isolation, alienation, and aloneness; communion in contact, openness, and union. Agency manifests itself in the urge to master; communion in non-contractual co-operation. Agency manifests itself in the repression of feeling and impulse, communion in the lack and removal of repression.
Guttman8 makes the distinction between allocerttric
and autocentric egostyles, where the allocentrie mode "conveys
to the individual
that the centers and sources of organization, social bonds, and initiatives are
extraneous to him" and have their own objective logic which shapes him at
least as much as he shapes them, whereas the autocentrie mode "gives each
individual recurrent experiences of being a focus or center of communal events
and ties." Witkin,9 working from empirical as well as theoretical work on
cognitive style refers to articulated (or analytic, or
field-independent) functioning
when the person can "disembed" a figure from a context perceptually,
has a well-developed sense of separate identity socially, and is
relatively self-contained
emotionally. By contrast, those with a global (or field-dependent) style have
trouble isolating detail from context perceptually (i.e., they
perceive "globally"),
have a much greater sense of dependence socially, and are relatively open and
expressive emotionally. Paul Tournier10 speaks of separation and relation,
or of the developmental cycle in which children begin by being unable
to see themselves
as individuals distinct from
their parents, but later progress to greater and greater
individualization (separation),
which is ideally followed eventually by freely-chosen, other-oriented
relation.
All of these systems share in common the notion that there is some
kind of tension,
or polarity, between the objective, the analytic, the rational, the
self-sufficient,
the self-contained on the one hand, and the subjective, the synthesizing, the
intuitive, the otherdependent, the emotive on the other hand. Some, like Witkin
and Guttman, stress the individual differences in style, usually
cautioning that
there are 0 "pure types", but rather a continuum from one
pole to the
other along which individuals can in principle be ordered. Others, like Bakan,
stress that the duality is inherent in each of us, and suggest that
we must ultimately
acknowledge and give play to both aspects. Still others, like Tournier, suggest
a development-cumspiritual progression from dependence to
independence to interdependence,
with pathology equally defined as failure to move from either
dependent ("weak")
reactions or independent ("strong") reactions to a
freelyembraced interdependence
with others.11
A Continuum of Cognitive Styles
I have chosen in the remainder of this paper to characterize cognitive styles
using Witkin's model and terminology, assuming the continuum of which
he speaks,
and suggesting that there are consistent, parallel individual
differences in both
cognitive and religious style which are attributable to basic,
underlying differences
in personality structure, itself dependent on both nature and nurture for the
direction of its development. Witkio's model, although not conceptually unique
in its broad outlines, has the advantage of having been empirically tested in
many hundreds of studies. Let me give some examples with which some of you are
undoubtedly already familiar.
In their 196212 synthesis of some two hundred empirical studies, Witkin
et al.
conclude that at the perceptual, cognitive, social and emotional
levels, individuals
tend to function in a consistently analytic or a consistently global
way. At the
perceptual level, analytic (or field-independent) people show a greater ability
than global (or field-dependent) people to isolate a familiar figure
from a complex
design (Embedded Figures Test), to adjust a rod to its true vertical position
uninfluenced by the tilt of a surrounding frame (Rod-and-Frame Test),
and to adjust
themselves in a tilted chair to true upright uninfluenced by the lilt
of an experimental
room in which they sit (Body Adjustment Test). At the cognitive level, analytic
people score better than global people on the Block Design, Picture Completion,
and Object Assembly tasks of I.Q. tests, and are better able to switch to new
problem-solving strategies ("set-breaking") when necessary.
On the social
level, analytic people show less need for guidance and support from others, are
less suggestible and conforming, and generally maintain the same sense of self
despite variations in the social context. On the emotional level,
analytic people
tend to be more distant and individualistic, and in situations of
emotional conflict
they tend to employ relatively specialized defense mechanisms, such
as compartmentalization
and intellectualization, whereas global persons tend towards simple denial or
repression. The basic factor linking these various performance indices seems to be whether items, including the self
- can be perceived as discrete and separate from the context
(perceptual, intellectual,
social, or emotional) in which they appear, of whether such items are
only perceived
as part of an undifferentiated whole-be it a design, a problem, a
social system,
or an emotional context.
Without the Word to inform us, we would not accurately recognize the nature of
the Spirit. But without the work of the Spirit, we would be unable to recognize
the Word as coherent truth which calls for obedience, not just
intellectual apprehension.
The work done by the cognitive style researchers has indicated some very stable
trends: differentiation of field-independence generally increases
with age, although
in later life it may level off or even reverse. Although there is substantial
overlap in the distribution of male and female scores for the
perceptual indices
such as the Rod-and-Frame and Embedded Figures Test, there is
nonetheless a small
but reliable average difference in the direction of men being more analytic or
field independent than women, and this difference persists
cross-culturally with
only a few exceptions to date-that is, within a given culture, men as a group
will be more differentiated in their style than women. With regard to
the question
of origins, the hulk of evidence so far lays more at the door of nurture than of
nature13 in North American studies, children whose autonomy is unnecessarily
restrictive for their age and capabilities, who are highly socialized
for conformity,
for whom discipline is erratic and inconsistent, or whose mothers
lack self-assurance
or self-realization in their capacity as mothers, may find it
difficult to develop
a separate sense of self and internalized criteria for making
judgments and decisions.
This manifests in both the perceptual-intellectual and socio-emotional indices
of differentiation listed previously-again, the difficulty being a general one
of separating self from social context, items from perceptual
context, or elements
from a logical context.
Cross-cultural studies, of which there are an increasing number, 14
indicate that
among traditional (non-westernized) groups there is another stable cluster of
cultural-ecological traits which differentiate more analytic from more global
societies: at the one extreme, there are groups which are nomadic
hunter-gatherers,
who also tend to function in small, loose social units, raise their
children permissively,
minimize sex-role differentiation, and have a nonauthoritarian mobile
social system.
Members of such groups tend to score high on field independence or
differentiation.
One can see why: their subsistence mode, in which group survival is enhanced by
perceptual acuity and strong individualism, favours the development
of a strongly
differentiated cognitive style. At the other extreme, there are
groups which are
re'atively sedentary pastoralists and farmers, who tend to function in larger,
highly-integrated social units, who stress the subservience of the individual to the survival needs of
the group as a whole, who raise their children strictly, have more
rigid sex-role
definitions and a hierarchized, authoritarian social system. Members
of such groups
tend to score low on measures of differentiation. Again, one can see
why: in this
case, group survival does not depend on perceptual flexibility in an
ever-changing
environment, and strong individualism is dysfunctional in a society
where herding
and agriculture must be done cooperatively according to inflexible
seasonal demands.
Value Labels
Now, in the preceding description, I have tried to avoid placing
different value-labels
on each of the cognitive styles, but this is difficult, because until recently
the nature of the tests used and indeed the flavour of the entire
literature have
inevitably made field-independent, analytic, differentiated thinking
somehow "better"
than the field-dependent, global, less-differentiated style. Somehow,
almost everything
that is good, clever, admirable, and red-blooded-American has gotten attached
to the notion of differentiation: field-independent people are more likely to
be mature, male, scientific, logical, self-controlled, articulate, and socially
and emotionally independent. As one of my colleagues puts it, "We all want
to be research scientists and Hemingway heroes"-that is, to be
intellectually
hard-nosed and socially self-sufficient. It is only as accumulating
cross-cultural
studies have showed that the style developed by any group seems to be
survivalrelevant
to the group that the notion of more-differentiated-equals-more-adequate has started
to be more seriously questioned. To be fair, Witkin and his coworkers
have periodically
suggested that the empirical evidence does not always favour the more
differentiated
style:
The characteristics common to held-independent perceivers ... may or may not contribute to optimal adjustment. Thus, although held-independent people are often able to function with a fair degree of autonomy from others, some of them are strikingly isolated individuals, overcontrolled, cold and distant, and unaware of their social stimulus value. We have in fact frequently encountered field-independent performance among hospitalized psychiatric patients who were actively delusional and apparently destined to remain institutionalized for the rest of their lives.
The "Word specialist" has a concern for theological correctness and a love of theological debate, e.g., Francis Schaeffer and John Warwick Montgomery. The "Spirit specialist" finds the essential cement of his faith in personal, ongoing dialogue with God, e.g., Oswald Chambers, David Wilkerson, and Edith Schaeffer.
Other studies, notably Crutchfield's 1958 work with Army Air Force captains,16
have scaled the field dependence/independence continuum in a way that confirms the notion that while extreme field dependence may be
intellectually dysfunctional,
extreme field independence may be socially maladaptive. Using
checklist and Q-sort
measures of personality in conjunction with measures of
differentiation Crutchfield
found that:
-extremely field-dependent men were concerned with making a good impression, gregarious, affectionate, considerate and tactful
-moderately field-dependent men were energetic, adventurous, socially poised and nonconforming
-moderately field-independent men were demanding, effective leaders, took ascendent roles, were self-reliant, and tended to manipulate people
-extremely field-independent men were cold and distant with others, unaware of their social stimulus value, concerned with philosophical problems, individualistic, and strong.
In short it appears that either extreme of cognitive style is a mixed blessing,
at least in a complex society like our own which increasingly stresses
technological
competence, but at the same time requires people to associate with
others in large,
highly structured organizations.
Matching Styles
More recent studies17 have stressed a totally new issue-that of the match
or mismatch of cognitive styles between members of significant dyads: it turns
out (not surprisingly) that field-independent therapists attract,
retain, and have
more success with field-independent clients and similarly for
field-dependent therapists
and clients. There is also evidence that students learn better, regardless of
subject, from teachers whose cognitive styles match their own. At this point,
one can only speculate about other possibilities: what about husbands and wives
whose styles are matched or mismatched? How, in each case, do they communicate,
resolve conflicts and order priorities? (The classic mismatch seems to be the
analytic, logical male mated to the global, intuitive female, but the opposite
is not uncommon either). Do we tend to choose mates and close friends
whose styles
are similar or complementary to our own? And what about our church life? Does
pastoral work demand one style more than the other, or do pastors of
either style
attract like-minded adherents, with the result that the entire ethos
of the church
eventually leans in one direction more than the other? How, in short, does the
analytic-global distinction in cognitive style relate to our earlier dichotomy
between the Word and the Spirit?
Let me state at this point what I am not implying; there are studies relating
religiosity to cognitive style which suggest a relationship between orthodoxy
and field-dependence"18 the idea being that those who are conformist and
responsive to authority will feel right at home in the ancestral
faith. But such
a hypothesis usually fails to take into account the necessary
distinction between
"extrinsic" and "intrinsic" religiosity", the former
term applying to persons who regard religious practices primarily as means to
other ends, such as social status, friendship, and aid and succourance in times
of distress; the latter terms applies to persons who, regardless of
the presence
or absence of such side benefits, have come freely into a dynamic faith which
they see as the lynch-pin of their existence, and for which they are willing,
if necessary, to endure considerable scorn on
the part of others. It may well be that, relatively speaking there
are more field-dependent
people among the extrinsically motivated-although the one study I was able to
track down on this showed no significant relationship between the two factors.20
But I do suggest
that elements of the global/analytic distinction persist
even among the truly born-again, regardless of their peculiar socialization and
religious histories. I would further suggest that each style, in its
nonpathological,
middle-range manifestation is an enrichment to the Body and helps to maintain
that Scripturally-founded balance of which the Reformers wrote. Recall what we
mean by the concept of the Word: "the truth claims of
Christianity, the meaning
of the texts of scripture, and the formulation of the contents of
scripture into
theology." And the Spirit: "speaks of the power of the
Christian faith,
of the richness of personal experience, of faith, of trust, of hope,
of the ability
to transform life, and the entering of the supernatural into our
personal lives,"
Are the Christians oriented to the former, on the average, the analytic ones,
and the latter the global ones? Such a notion, to my knowledge, has
never really
been tested using the standard measure of fielddependence/independence. But without
having done so (this is on my research agenda), it may be possible even now to
sketch out a cluster of traits that characterizes the performance of
each in the
Body. Let me suggest a possible profile for the "Word specialist" and
the "Spirit specialist" within the church, cautioning again
that there
are probably few if any "pure types", but using this distinction for
the sake of clarity and contrast.
The "Word Specialist"
I suggest that the "Word specialist" has a concern for
theological correctness
and a love of theological debate. He leans towards the "truth" side
of Paul's admonition to "speak the truth in love", and if
not careful,
he can end up speaking the truth with too little love at times, If he has the
gift of writing, he may end up authoring commentaries, reference
volumes, or apologetic
works. If he is a pastor, his sermons will probably emphasize the
"observation"
and "interpretation" of Scriptural passages more than the
"application".
At his best, he is apt to be a strong, articulate, respected leader, but if he
is not careful and Scriptural, he may end up delegating too little
responsibility
or using his parishioners to implement decisions he has failed to involve them
in. He is the kind of person who has a well-developed, ever-expanding analysis
of his faith. For this reason, he is usually not afraid to engage nonChristians
in discussion, and may be a highly successful evangelist when dealing
with people
whose background and interests are similar to his own. The defence of his faith
rests particularly on the unity and integrity of Scriptural revelation, and the
solidness of the claims for the historicity of Christ's life, death,
and resurrection.
If he has been converted as an adult, it is apt to have been one of these two
things which originally convinced him.
(By way of example, I think of Francis Schaeffer, who as a student originally read the Bible to compare it to other near-eastern writing of its time, and ended up concluding that it was the only system which adequately explained the way the world really was. I also think of John Warwick Montgomery, who as an undergraduate in classics became a Christian after concluding that if he denied the historicity of the New Testament documents any longer, he would also have to throw out all the other writings of classical antiquity, which by the standards of any good historian were much more poorly attested. Both these men, from their writings, would seem to be strong "Word specialists"; such a study of "conversion styles" as predictive of later, lasting "religious styles" merits more intensive study).
While certainly not unaware of the power of God in his personal life, the Word
specialist seems more drawn by larger, more cosmic spiritual trends,
and for this
reason may have tremendous vision for a large, clearly-structured ministry in
the form of a growing church, a mission society, an evangelistic organization,
or a college. He is apt to build up such a ministry by means of
well-defined steps
which by their clarity convince workers and supporters that he is
worthy of theft
allegiance and trust. However, because of his articulateness, efficiency, and
breath of vision, he may intimidate people who are in need of a warm, intensely
personal ministry and who find him hard to identify with, let alone
emulate. Because
his strengths lean in the direction of the analytic and the abstract, he must
be careful not to sacrifice individual needs to larger principles where this is
inappropriate. He works best with people whose style matches his own, although
he may also realize that he and his ministry need the balance that is supplied
by a more-spiritual co-worker or spouse.
Note that I have described my generic "Word specialist" as if he were
a person with a full-time ministry, such as teaching, pastoring, or
administering
a Christian organization, but what I have said should apply at the
more molecular
level as well: Wordoriented parishioners, I suspect are attracted to pastors of
like style, thrive on listening to strong, analytic teaching, and
enjoy building
up the organizational aspects of the church and its related para-ecclesiastical
work. They show a concern that their children he grounded solidly in Biblical
teaching from an early age, and see this as the major responsibility
of the church
to its young. Although one is tempted to conclude that more men than women are
Word-oriented, I do not believe that the dichotomy is all that clear, for even
among Christian women who lead fairly traditional lives, I see many who share
the above concerns and priorities to the extent that their domestic lives and
educational backgrounds allow.
The "Spirit Specialist"
By contrast, the "Spirit specialist", while not necessarily loving or
submitting to the Word any less than his analytically-oriented brother, finds
the essential cement of his faith in personal, ongoing dialogue with
God. He may
well be theologically much less articulate, but still recognizes
truth from error,
not just in principle, but especially in concrete situations in his
own personal
life and the lives of others. His strength is his freely contracted, supportive
emotional involvement with others, especially on a one-to-one basis,
and he must
take care at times not to let love compromise essential truth. He often has the
gift of discerning spiritual needs and God's power in very
down-to-earth personal
and interpersonal events, and has a strong sense of God's concern for and power
over even apparently insignificant aspects of life. He reads the Word
like today's
newspaper culling from it not so much historic truth or systematic theology as a dynamic personal message for his own
(or someone else's) needs of the moment. If he writes or preaches, he is apt to
stress current application as much as analysis and interpretation of the Word.
(Oswald Chambers is a classic example among Christian writers). If he
can recall
the circumstances of his conversion, he is apt to say that it was a conviction
of God's immanence, love, and urgency that initially made him sit up and take
notice and thereafter sent him back to a deeper study of the Word.
It is his personal love, concern and solid faith towards which others
are drawn,
and not so much his skills as an analyst or organizer, things for which he may
have very little predisposition. His success as evangelist rests as much in the
testimony-conscious and otherwise-of his peacefulness, love, and humility. He
(or she-because there are a fair number of "she's" in this category)
may never score the winning point in a theological debate, yet will win over an
opponent through a loving acceptance of him as a person and through a
practical,
godly concern for aspects of his life that the Word-specialist may miss-aspects
such as personal loneliness, temptation, the ups and downs of family life, or
personal occasions of joy and sorrow. His spiritual vision is not
always far-reaching
in terms of clearly-defined goals, and even when it is, he may rely more on a
day-to-day trust in God for its outworking. Witness David Wilkerson,
Edith Schaeffer,
and countless others "buying" a piece of property to begin a ministry
without the slightest idea where the funds for it were to come from,
yet watching
those funds trickle in, mortgage payment by mortgage payment, often no more and
no less than needed at that specific moment. (I am not implying that
the Word-specialist,
in his long-range, careful planning, somehow lacks a degree of faith that the
Spirit-specialist has; clearly God calls His people to work in both ways. The
real danger lies in lack of discernment: trying to do it one way when the other
is called for, or assuming that because our personal style has worked for us,
then the opposite style cannot possibly he of God).
As a pastor, the Spirit-specialist tends the needs of his flock well, and leans
naturally towards a Body ministry, gradually and almost casually involving many
co-participants in an organic network of interpersonal support and
outreach. However,
his more Wordoriented parishoners may easily tire of "all this
endless personal
sharing", and wonder why he doesn't get more solid, intellectual teaching
from a strongly-articulated theology. Eventually, he may take his membership to
a church where the leadership, like himself, is more Word-oriented.
By contrast,
the Spirit-oriented members rejoice in the close personal ties,
emotional refreshment,
and spiritual emphasis fostered by such a congregation, and see of
supreme importance
that their children experience God's love through the Body even as they learn
the Word. For them, strong Bible-teaching in the Sunday School would
not compensate
for insensitivity or inflexibility towards their children's personal needs.
Implications of this Dichotomy
What are some of the implications of this dichotomy-or rather, of
this dimension,
if that is what it is?
It seems significant to me that Paul names the work of
"pastor-teacher"
as a single ministry. Yet the pastoral function suggests an intensely personal
shepherding, and the teaching function an articulate, analytic approach.
Like Ramm, I am personally and scripturally convinced that the
ministry of Jesus
Christ is to the whole manbody, brains, social and emotional needs,
and I suspect
that the most fruitful ministries are those whose leadership includes men and
women of both Word and Spirit orientations, working together in an
attitude which
recognizes the strengths and limitations of each style. Occasionally there are
people who have a "fused style", going from one orientation
to the other
as the situation suggests and as God leads-and perhaps, as Bakan suggests, it
is only socialization which prevents the Wordspecialist from
recognizing and developing
his Spiritual side, and the Spirit-specialist from giving due to his
Word-oriented
side. Occasionally I have known people discerning enough to realize that they
need regular, systematic exposure to activities and people of the style that is
not their naturally preferred one-but such people are rare. Too frequently we
prefer selfconfirmation to the struggle of growth.
Then too, I am distressed by the overemphasis placed by individual Christians
and, indeed, whole organizations, on one style to the exclusion of the other.
Too often, in the recent past, we have either latched onto or
overreacted against
the North American deification of the rational, analytic
"research scientist
and Hemingway hero", and this has fostered Christian bodies which suffer
from Ramm's "theological intellectualism", or its
opposite-a vague spirituality
based more on "good vibes" than on solid, scriptural
understanding.
I am distressed, too, by the intolerance I frequently see shown by each type of
Christian for the other-and I suspect that the Spirit-oriented
Christian is more
frequently victimized by this. The Word-specialist who is unhappy in
a Spirit-oriented
Body is usually articulate enough to have his complaints heard and
heeded. Failing
that, he usually has a strongly-enough-developed individualism to pick up and
go elsewhere if he is dissatisfied. But I have seen many sensitive
Spiritoriented
Christians whose needs are ill-met in a Wordoriented setting, and
whose very nature,
being more dependent on the immediate social context for affirmation, prevents
them from seeking out a more Spiritual setting. Furthermore, being
less able logically
to articulate the reasons for their needs, dispositions, and dissatisfactions,
they may he branded by themselves and others as misfits, when in fact
their Spiritual
gifts (of prayer, of encouragement, of love) if recognized and
tapped, might enrich
and even revitalize the lives and ministries of theft churches or
organizations.
I think too of the potential contradiction posed by large, structured
impersonal
Christian organizations whose avowed purpose is that of fostering one-to-one,
personal ministry. One such organization in my city High School outreach which
was part of an international organization-has recently disintegrated,
in part because it workers were chosen for their Spiritual and interpersonal
sensitivity,
but its leaders for their nononsense, uncompromising organizational
ability. (This
is the conclusion of a colleague of mine who has acted as interim
vocational counsellor
to many of the organization's now-jobless workers). The
Word-specialist administrators
and their Spirit-specialist workers just couldn't adequately
comprehend each other's
priorities -although, as is often the ease, the Spirit-specialists
(part of whose
strength is interpersonal sensitivity) were more aware of the discrepancy, even
while they were less able to articulate a solution.
Finally, it seems significant to me that Paul, in his list in
Ephesians 4 of the
gifts given "for the equipping of the saints for the work of service"
names the work of "pastor-teacher" as a single ministry.
Yet the pastoral
function suggests an intensely personal shepherding, and the teaching function
an articulate, analytic approach. Could Paul be making a plea for
each Christian
minister (which in the final analysis means each Christian) to set as
his or her
goal an integration of both these values, these styles, in the personality? For
those of us who tend to he Word-specialists by nature, this would
mean deliberate
exposure to situations and people who can help us develop our Spiritual side;
for those of us who are more intrinsically Spiritoriented, this might call for
the self-discipline of scholarship when it would be more comfortable
to continue
merely enjoying the warmth and supportiveness of like-minded
Christians. In either
case, whether as individuals or as a Body, it is only as we recognize and value
the necessary contribution of both styles that "speaking the
truth in love,
we (can) grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head-even Jesus
Christ."21
REFERENCES
1See for instance, Ps. 44:21, Ps. 58:2, EccI. 9:3, Is. 44:20, Jer. 17:9, Mark
7:21-23, Ram. 7:15-24.
2Tournier, P. The Meaning of Persons, SCM, London, 1957, p. 58.
3Ramm, B. "The Holy Alliance", His, 1974, 34 (5), 12-15. "The
Way of the Spirit", His, 1974, 34 (6), 16-18, 22.
4Jnng, C. G. Man and His Symbols, Aldus Banks, Ltd., London, 1964.
5Piaget, J. The Origins of Intelligence in Children. International Universities
Press, New York, 1952.
6Wadswnrth, B. J. Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development,
David McKay Company Inc., New York, 1971.
7Bakan, D. The Duality of Human Existence. Rand McNally and Company, Chicago,
1966.
8Cnttman, D. "Female Ego Styles and Generational Conflict."
In Bardwick, J. et al. (Ed,). Feminine Personality and
Conflict. Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., Belmont, California, 1970.
9Wiltkin, H. I. et al., Psychological Differentiation, Wiley and
Sons, Inc., New
York, 1962.
10Touroier, P. Op. cit., p. 127 fl
11Tournier, P. The Strong and the Weak, trans. Edwin Hudson, Westminster Press,
Philadelphia, 1963.
12Witkin, H. I. Op. cit.
14Witkin, H. I. "A Cognitive-Style Approach to Cross-Cultural
Research."
International Journal of Psychology, 1967, 2 (4), 233-250.
14Witkio, H. I. Ibid.
15Witkin, H. I. Psychological Differentiation, p. 3.
16Crutchfield, R. S., Woodworth, D. C. and Albrecht, R. E. "Perceptual
Performance and the Effective Person." Lackland AFB, Texas, Personnel Lab.
Rep. WADC-TN-58-60, ASTIA Doe. No. AD 151 039.
l7Witkin, H.I. Personal Communication, December, 1973.
18Witkiu, H. I. Ibid.
19Allport, C. W, and Ross, J. M. "Personal Religious Orientation and Prejudice."
Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1967, 5, 432-443.
20Becker, J. 0. "The Cognitive Factor in Religious
Orientations." Unpublished
Ph.D. Thesis, St. Louis University, 1969. University Microfilms Order
No. 70-20,
366).
21Eph. 4:15.