My dissertation has been focused on understanding how spirituality affects how we decide to engage in moral and immoral behaviors. The model I am using for this relationship is the Theory of Reasoned Action. Reasoned Action states that behavioral intentions are the result of two main influences: personal beliefs and social norms. Personal beliefs are related to what we believe about the behavior: is it enjoyable, is it instrumental for something else, and is it moral? Social norms include what we think other people want us to do and what other people actually do.
I have been wondering how Reasoned Action could be applied to religious conversion. When a person thinks about changing their religious convictions (or lack thereof), what influences are important for them? Here are some possibilities, based on this theory:
Attitudes: people convert because they think it will be enjoyable, pleasant, and maybe even fun to be a different religion.
Instrumental Beliefs: converting will help them accomplish some goal in their life, such as quitting alcohol or raising good religious children.
Moral Values: conversion is important because it is the "right" thing to do, because it is God's will and because it is true
Descriptive social norms: converting is attractive because a lot of their friends are that religion or have just converted, their example is influential
Injunctive social norms: the person believes that their friends and other influential people in their lives want them to convert (regardless of their own faith)
Perceived control (an aspect of Planned Behavior, not Reasoned Action): the person believes that it is possible for them to convert, that they could live a new life.
As you can imagine, all of these dimensions will likely be important influences on why a person converts. Two questions emerge: which of these are most important to the person who converts? And which of these reasons are acceptable to the religion as a reason to convert.
For the first question, this could suggest possibilities for ways to help people convert. If it is Attitudes that is foremost, then how do make the religion appear more enjoyable? If it is Injunctive Social Norms, then obviously sharing faith will be an important facet for helping people convert. But this brings us to the second question, what are the preferable reasons for conversion?
I think it is likely that religious clergy would want people to convert out of their moral values, a belief that it is true and good. But what if a person wants to convert so that they can meet dateable men or women? Obviously, some religious traditions would care more about intentions than others. If we "sell" a religion based upon Attitudes, then do people actually internalize their faith? If we pressure people to convert by sharing our faith with them regularly, does this create the type of faith that we hope for?
These questions are complex. Maybe I will be able to read up on any previous research in this area... or maybe even do some of my own research. Any thoughts or comments?
Showing posts with label spirituality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label spirituality. Show all posts
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
Important Lessons on Myers-Briggs and Personality
I have been doing some research on the Myers-Briggs lately and thought it would be interesting to share some of what I have found. Now, this topic isn't directly related to spirituality but I know that many churches use the Myers-Briggs to help people understand themselves better. So what does the research say about the Myers-Briggs?
First of all, the research is fairly clear about one thing: classifying yourself into types (i.e. Introvert vs. Extrovert, Sensing vs. Intuiting, Thinking vs. Feeling, and Judging vs. Perceiving) is not the best way of understanding personality. If certain types were completely different (rather than relatively different), then they would have unique characteristics. Instead, the degree to which one leans to a certain personality is important. As an example, someone who scores a little bit on the introverted site would be characterized as an I, but they will be very different from another person who scored very extreme on Introversion. Lesson #1: Know how extreme your score is on each dimension.
Second, and this relates to the first, the 16 classifications (INTJ or ESFP) do not represent this variability in the dimensions and are thus oversimplifications of personality. The descriptions are vague enough so that we feel like they describe us, but they do very little to predict our actual behaviors. Lesson #2: Don't pay much attention to your 4-letter type.
Third, the Myers-Briggs is not the accepted model of personality within academia. Instead of four dimensions of personality, most research suggests that there are five dimensions. They are: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Extraversion is pretty much the same as the I/E scale of the Myers-Briggs. Similarly, Openness to Experience is the same as S/N, with Intuitiveness increasing as Openness increases. There is some evidence that T/F does measure a unique orientation to problems; however, it also measures Agreeableness, so that those high in Thinking are less Agreeable. Judging/Perceiving is related to Conscientiousness, with Judgers being more Conscientious. Finally, Anxiety has been shown to be a unique dimension of personality but this is not reflected in the Myers-Briggs. Lesson #3: The Myers-Briggs can tell you about your level of Extraversion and to what degree you are open to experiences through intuition. Lesson #4: The Myers-Briggs is not very reliable in deciphering whether you have a thinking or feeling orientation and instead T/F is actually a combination of multiple aspects of your personality, most notably Aggreeableness. Lesson #5: Judging/Perceiving is actually a combination of several elements of your personality and it is unclear to what degree this tells you something unique about who you are. Lesson #6: The Myers-Briggs does not tell you about your level of Neuroticism (Anxiety and Depression) although this may be an important strength of the measure for general usage.
Fourth, personality is not simply 4 or 5 dimensions. While I have mentioned the five factor model of personality, the reality is that there are more dimensions, but the dimensions can be grouped into five factors. One popular personality test, the 16-PF measures personality on 16 dimensions. While this test can group the scores together into the five factors, looking at all 16 dimensions reveals a lot more about our personality. Lesson #7: Broad views of personality are helpful but specific viewpoints add clarity.
Finally, there has been some who have argued for a sixth dimension of personality: spirituality. Our ability to connect to the sacred reflects a key component of who we are as people. This does not mean that we are bound to either be spiritual or not spiritual. Remember, our personalities can change! Lesson #8: Spirituality appears to be a component of our personality. Lesson #9: Our personalities can change to some degree through our life experiences.
First of all, the research is fairly clear about one thing: classifying yourself into types (i.e. Introvert vs. Extrovert, Sensing vs. Intuiting, Thinking vs. Feeling, and Judging vs. Perceiving) is not the best way of understanding personality. If certain types were completely different (rather than relatively different), then they would have unique characteristics. Instead, the degree to which one leans to a certain personality is important. As an example, someone who scores a little bit on the introverted site would be characterized as an I, but they will be very different from another person who scored very extreme on Introversion. Lesson #1: Know how extreme your score is on each dimension.
Second, and this relates to the first, the 16 classifications (INTJ or ESFP) do not represent this variability in the dimensions and are thus oversimplifications of personality. The descriptions are vague enough so that we feel like they describe us, but they do very little to predict our actual behaviors. Lesson #2: Don't pay much attention to your 4-letter type.
Third, the Myers-Briggs is not the accepted model of personality within academia. Instead of four dimensions of personality, most research suggests that there are five dimensions. They are: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Extraversion is pretty much the same as the I/E scale of the Myers-Briggs. Similarly, Openness to Experience is the same as S/N, with Intuitiveness increasing as Openness increases. There is some evidence that T/F does measure a unique orientation to problems; however, it also measures Agreeableness, so that those high in Thinking are less Agreeable. Judging/Perceiving is related to Conscientiousness, with Judgers being more Conscientious. Finally, Anxiety has been shown to be a unique dimension of personality but this is not reflected in the Myers-Briggs. Lesson #3: The Myers-Briggs can tell you about your level of Extraversion and to what degree you are open to experiences through intuition. Lesson #4: The Myers-Briggs is not very reliable in deciphering whether you have a thinking or feeling orientation and instead T/F is actually a combination of multiple aspects of your personality, most notably Aggreeableness. Lesson #5: Judging/Perceiving is actually a combination of several elements of your personality and it is unclear to what degree this tells you something unique about who you are. Lesson #6: The Myers-Briggs does not tell you about your level of Neuroticism (Anxiety and Depression) although this may be an important strength of the measure for general usage.
Fourth, personality is not simply 4 or 5 dimensions. While I have mentioned the five factor model of personality, the reality is that there are more dimensions, but the dimensions can be grouped into five factors. One popular personality test, the 16-PF measures personality on 16 dimensions. While this test can group the scores together into the five factors, looking at all 16 dimensions reveals a lot more about our personality. Lesson #7: Broad views of personality are helpful but specific viewpoints add clarity.
Finally, there has been some who have argued for a sixth dimension of personality: spirituality. Our ability to connect to the sacred reflects a key component of who we are as people. This does not mean that we are bound to either be spiritual or not spiritual. Remember, our personalities can change! Lesson #8: Spirituality appears to be a component of our personality. Lesson #9: Our personalities can change to some degree through our life experiences.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Theories of Spirituality
Following this past weekend's conference, I thought it would be nice to review some of prominent theories in the psychology of religion. These theories have to do with how we can conceptualize religion and spirituality. As they developed in the realm of psychology, some of them may strike religious believers as being unusual or atheistic. I will discuss the implications of them as I currently understand them.
Attribution theory - generally, this theory has to do with how we attribute causes to events. We might explain events internally, by our own action, or externally, by the action of an outside agent. In relation to religion, attribution theory suggests that humans judge the cause of some actions to be a higher power, which they might term God. The way we attribute the causes of events can be referred to as our locus of control. We can infer causation to self, powerful others, luck, or God (among other sources). While this may sound scientific or reductionistic, I find that this is an important element of faith. Religion and spirituality give believers a new lens to see the world and to interpret what is happening around them.
Motivational theory - One of the earliest studies of religion was by Gordon Allport on the relationship between religion and prejudice. Studies had found a small but significant positive relationship between religious importance and prejudice, such that religious individuals were more prejudiced. Allport posited that this relationship had to do with how one orients oneself to religion. He found that in individuals with an intrinsic orientation towards religion, this relationship reversed and was significantly negatively related to prejudice. People who were oriented toward religion for personal happiness or as a social group as their primary motivations showed a positive association with prejudice. Thus, the motivations for why one pursues religion matter. This was the first study to show that religiousness was more than just an identity but actually had components that were important to understand. I appreciate the concept of intrinsic religiousness because it captures true faith rather than just an identity.
Religious coping - The study of religious coping has recently exploded - and for good reason. This is the most promising area of religious research currently being investigated. Religious coping refers to how we use our faith to deal with problems. Ken Pargament suggests three coping styles: collaborative, deferring, and self-directing. Each of these has to do with how we rely on God in the midst of our problems, do we collaborate with God, do we let God make all the decisions, or do we take the reins for ourselves? In fact, a collaborative style has been shown to be the most healthy, physically and mentally, which is consistent with most religions. (A fourth coping style is surrender - but I have not read Pargament's research on this concept). Religious coping has been shown to be very predictive of spiritual well-being and is therefore a key component of religion.
Multivariate Theory - This is the theory that I have been using and which integrates the above perspectives. Additionally, it holds that religious beliefs are an important part of religion. This theory argues that what we believe affects the reasons we turn to religion (religious motivation), our reasons for being religious affect how we use our religion (religious coping), and that beliefs, motivations, and coping styles compose the structure of our religious life such that our experience of religion (i.e. closeness to God, spiritual well-being, morality, etc.) are founded on these variables.
Attachment theory - the final theory that I am aware of is attachment theory. This theory is based on the belief that our cognitive conception of God, as well as experience of God, has to do with how we connect with God. If we have a secure and trusting attachment with God, we will see God as loving and feel that we are safe in his hands. However, if we see God as abandoning or as restrictive, we will react in other ways. While this is a compelling theory, the empirical evidence for its validity is lacking. However, I anticipate that further research will show that this, too, is an important part of religious life. Certainly, how we interact with God is an important part of our spiritual lives.
Hope these theories enliven your understanding of the psychology of religion. Feel free to ask questions about any of the above.
Attribution theory - generally, this theory has to do with how we attribute causes to events. We might explain events internally, by our own action, or externally, by the action of an outside agent. In relation to religion, attribution theory suggests that humans judge the cause of some actions to be a higher power, which they might term God. The way we attribute the causes of events can be referred to as our locus of control. We can infer causation to self, powerful others, luck, or God (among other sources). While this may sound scientific or reductionistic, I find that this is an important element of faith. Religion and spirituality give believers a new lens to see the world and to interpret what is happening around them.
Motivational theory - One of the earliest studies of religion was by Gordon Allport on the relationship between religion and prejudice. Studies had found a small but significant positive relationship between religious importance and prejudice, such that religious individuals were more prejudiced. Allport posited that this relationship had to do with how one orients oneself to religion. He found that in individuals with an intrinsic orientation towards religion, this relationship reversed and was significantly negatively related to prejudice. People who were oriented toward religion for personal happiness or as a social group as their primary motivations showed a positive association with prejudice. Thus, the motivations for why one pursues religion matter. This was the first study to show that religiousness was more than just an identity but actually had components that were important to understand. I appreciate the concept of intrinsic religiousness because it captures true faith rather than just an identity.
Religious coping - The study of religious coping has recently exploded - and for good reason. This is the most promising area of religious research currently being investigated. Religious coping refers to how we use our faith to deal with problems. Ken Pargament suggests three coping styles: collaborative, deferring, and self-directing. Each of these has to do with how we rely on God in the midst of our problems, do we collaborate with God, do we let God make all the decisions, or do we take the reins for ourselves? In fact, a collaborative style has been shown to be the most healthy, physically and mentally, which is consistent with most religions. (A fourth coping style is surrender - but I have not read Pargament's research on this concept). Religious coping has been shown to be very predictive of spiritual well-being and is therefore a key component of religion.
Multivariate Theory - This is the theory that I have been using and which integrates the above perspectives. Additionally, it holds that religious beliefs are an important part of religion. This theory argues that what we believe affects the reasons we turn to religion (religious motivation), our reasons for being religious affect how we use our religion (religious coping), and that beliefs, motivations, and coping styles compose the structure of our religious life such that our experience of religion (i.e. closeness to God, spiritual well-being, morality, etc.) are founded on these variables.
Attachment theory - the final theory that I am aware of is attachment theory. This theory is based on the belief that our cognitive conception of God, as well as experience of God, has to do with how we connect with God. If we have a secure and trusting attachment with God, we will see God as loving and feel that we are safe in his hands. However, if we see God as abandoning or as restrictive, we will react in other ways. While this is a compelling theory, the empirical evidence for its validity is lacking. However, I anticipate that further research will show that this, too, is an important part of religious life. Certainly, how we interact with God is an important part of our spiritual lives.
Hope these theories enliven your understanding of the psychology of religion. Feel free to ask questions about any of the above.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Flow States and Everyday Spirituality
In my previous post, I wrote about flow states and spiritual disciplines but here I want to expand on how flow states could be related to everyday spirituality. I encourage you to read the previous post first to get a better feel for what I am writing about here. But, to summarize, a flow state is an "optimal experience" where one feels highly challenged and highly competent to meet those challenges. An example would be expert rock climbers when climbing a difficult face, they feel a sense of "flow" in what they are doing.
Now can Christians achieve this type of experience in their everyday lives? I might argue that the Apostle Paul, who was able to bear numerous trials and still remain connected to the faith, is an example that one can. But I believe the trick is to achieve the proper amount of "spiritual competency" to meet the challenges of everyday life.
Now, first of all, let me say that I believe that all believers have the Holy Spirit working inside of them and are capable of doing everything that God requires of them. So I'm not saying that spiritual competency is just a skill-base or something that we can develop apart from God. But I also believe that all Christians need to rely on numerous resources that they are not inherently able to do as soon as they become Christians.
One might call this concept "religious coping" - using religious resources to cope with problems (the term has limitations - true faith does not use strategies just to get through life, it embodies faithful devotion that has a secondary effect of being able to overcome difficulties). Religious coping is not bestowed through conversion but is taught in sermons, books, etc. and modeled through relationships in the church. Religious coping involves both external forms of coping (seeking support of a pastor, listening to and participating in religious music, etc.) and internal forms (surrendering will over to God, prayer, etc.). These are the resources that will enable a believer to feel competent to meet the challenges in their lives.
But one important point needs to be made. Some Christians (I might even say most American Christians) do not experience "high challenge" that requires them to feel a state of flow. Their lives do not involve the threat of extreme poverty, violence, or political control. These Christians likely do not experience recurrent times of "high challenge" that can facilitate the awesome experience of flow. But there is hope here. By challenging themselves (and I can say this to myself - by challenging myself) to grow in ways that are uncomfortable, by giving generously, sharing one's faith, and giving voice to the powerless, Christians can have the opportunity to experience the pleasure of being in a state of optimal experience. By giving of themselves, they can receive the blessing of fulfillment.
Now can Christians achieve this type of experience in their everyday lives? I might argue that the Apostle Paul, who was able to bear numerous trials and still remain connected to the faith, is an example that one can. But I believe the trick is to achieve the proper amount of "spiritual competency" to meet the challenges of everyday life.
Now, first of all, let me say that I believe that all believers have the Holy Spirit working inside of them and are capable of doing everything that God requires of them. So I'm not saying that spiritual competency is just a skill-base or something that we can develop apart from God. But I also believe that all Christians need to rely on numerous resources that they are not inherently able to do as soon as they become Christians.
One might call this concept "religious coping" - using religious resources to cope with problems (the term has limitations - true faith does not use strategies just to get through life, it embodies faithful devotion that has a secondary effect of being able to overcome difficulties). Religious coping is not bestowed through conversion but is taught in sermons, books, etc. and modeled through relationships in the church. Religious coping involves both external forms of coping (seeking support of a pastor, listening to and participating in religious music, etc.) and internal forms (surrendering will over to God, prayer, etc.). These are the resources that will enable a believer to feel competent to meet the challenges in their lives.
But one important point needs to be made. Some Christians (I might even say most American Christians) do not experience "high challenge" that requires them to feel a state of flow. Their lives do not involve the threat of extreme poverty, violence, or political control. These Christians likely do not experience recurrent times of "high challenge" that can facilitate the awesome experience of flow. But there is hope here. By challenging themselves (and I can say this to myself - by challenging myself) to grow in ways that are uncomfortable, by giving generously, sharing one's faith, and giving voice to the powerless, Christians can have the opportunity to experience the pleasure of being in a state of optimal experience. By giving of themselves, they can receive the blessing of fulfillment.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Christian Camps and Our Youth
I'm writing up my master's thesis right now and thought I would share a few of my findings. I'll try not to get into the details and really paint the broad picture of what I found. My thesis is on two main topics: understanding the changes that occur when youth attend Christian camps and understanding the mechanisms and interconnections of adolescent spirituality. I might decide to blog on the second topic but for now I will stick to what effect attendance at a Christian camp had on adolescent spirituality.
First off, I should note my methods. We gave questionnaires to campers at two Christian camps (confidentiality prevents me from saying which ones), half receiving the questionnaire at the beginning and half at the end. We looked at the differences in spirituality between these two groups, inferring that any significant differences were the effect of the camp. We looked at God concept, religious motivation, religious coping, and spiritual well-being.
What did we find? Well, first off, I should note that we found that the kids attending these camps were already very religious. They attended church about once a week, they rated their religion as being "Very important" and nearly all rated their belief that Jesus is the Son of God as a 5 on a 5 point scale (what researchers call a ceiling effect). This is important to note because camps often focus more on conversions than on spiritual growth. But with a very religious camp, this might not be appropriate. Of course, some camps might have a greater representation of the less religious than we found at these camps.
What changes did we find? Campers changed their God concept so that they believed more in a Christian God concept (God is loving, kind, and not distant). Although campers were religious at the onset, their God concepts moved towards being more Christian, and this change was statistically significant, despite the "ceiling effect." We also found that campers had higher religious and existential well-being at the end of the camp. We weren't too surprised by higher religious well-being, which has to do with a sense that God loves them, but an increase in existential well-being, which has to do with a positive orientation towards life in general, was a bit more surprising. This means that the mechanisms targeting spiritual development at camps, the speakers, small groups, games, and free time, lead to an improved outlook on life as a whole. Our conclusion: the camps are doing a good job.
What changes didn't we find? Well, we didn't find any significant changes in belief in Jesus Christ. The reason: they had such high belief at the onset. The fact that some people still did not have a 5 out of 5 rating reflects doubt rather than unbelief, and there have been some studies that suggest doubt and questioning can be a positive aspect of spiritual development. We also didn't find any change in 7 variables of religious coping, or how campers use religious resources, such as prayer, clergy support, and listening to religious music, for example, to deal with problems in their lives. This is the area where we see the most room for growth for camps. Instead of trying to persuade campers about the truthfulness of the gospel and their need for salvation, camps can address the practical aspects of religious life, as the problems in our lives really do define who we are.
We also found that campers were increasing in extrinsic personal reasons for pursuing religion, rather than intrinsic reasons. That means they were increasing their religiousness because of what they got out of it, rather than because they found more to enjoy within religion. This finding may seem to be negative, but we suggest that this may simply be a stage that must be entered in order to progress towards a more intrinsic faith. Adolescents who find a lot of external reasons for becoming religious may be more likely to stick around religion and have positive feelings about faith in general. However, there is always the alternative explanation that these Christian camps are so much about fun that they distract campers from intrinsic faith. But we do not think that this is the case (as the campers are clearly changing positively in God concept and spiritual well-being).
To sum up, Christian camps change beliefs and increase external reasons for being religiously involved. They also increase religious and existential well-being. They do not seem to increase intrinsic reasons for pursuing religion (enjoyment of being religious for its own sake) and don't seem to change how campers use their religion in everyday life (but maybe this occurs when they get home, it just takes time to implement these changes). Of course, campers may change on variables that we didn't study and it's important to remember that, as well. Hope this clarifies the positive role that Christian camps can have on the spiritual life of youth in the course of a week.
First off, I should note my methods. We gave questionnaires to campers at two Christian camps (confidentiality prevents me from saying which ones), half receiving the questionnaire at the beginning and half at the end. We looked at the differences in spirituality between these two groups, inferring that any significant differences were the effect of the camp. We looked at God concept, religious motivation, religious coping, and spiritual well-being.
What did we find? Well, first off, I should note that we found that the kids attending these camps were already very religious. They attended church about once a week, they rated their religion as being "Very important" and nearly all rated their belief that Jesus is the Son of God as a 5 on a 5 point scale (what researchers call a ceiling effect). This is important to note because camps often focus more on conversions than on spiritual growth. But with a very religious camp, this might not be appropriate. Of course, some camps might have a greater representation of the less religious than we found at these camps.
What changes did we find? Campers changed their God concept so that they believed more in a Christian God concept (God is loving, kind, and not distant). Although campers were religious at the onset, their God concepts moved towards being more Christian, and this change was statistically significant, despite the "ceiling effect." We also found that campers had higher religious and existential well-being at the end of the camp. We weren't too surprised by higher religious well-being, which has to do with a sense that God loves them, but an increase in existential well-being, which has to do with a positive orientation towards life in general, was a bit more surprising. This means that the mechanisms targeting spiritual development at camps, the speakers, small groups, games, and free time, lead to an improved outlook on life as a whole. Our conclusion: the camps are doing a good job.
What changes didn't we find? Well, we didn't find any significant changes in belief in Jesus Christ. The reason: they had such high belief at the onset. The fact that some people still did not have a 5 out of 5 rating reflects doubt rather than unbelief, and there have been some studies that suggest doubt and questioning can be a positive aspect of spiritual development. We also didn't find any change in 7 variables of religious coping, or how campers use religious resources, such as prayer, clergy support, and listening to religious music, for example, to deal with problems in their lives. This is the area where we see the most room for growth for camps. Instead of trying to persuade campers about the truthfulness of the gospel and their need for salvation, camps can address the practical aspects of religious life, as the problems in our lives really do define who we are.
We also found that campers were increasing in extrinsic personal reasons for pursuing religion, rather than intrinsic reasons. That means they were increasing their religiousness because of what they got out of it, rather than because they found more to enjoy within religion. This finding may seem to be negative, but we suggest that this may simply be a stage that must be entered in order to progress towards a more intrinsic faith. Adolescents who find a lot of external reasons for becoming religious may be more likely to stick around religion and have positive feelings about faith in general. However, there is always the alternative explanation that these Christian camps are so much about fun that they distract campers from intrinsic faith. But we do not think that this is the case (as the campers are clearly changing positively in God concept and spiritual well-being).
To sum up, Christian camps change beliefs and increase external reasons for being religiously involved. They also increase religious and existential well-being. They do not seem to increase intrinsic reasons for pursuing religion (enjoyment of being religious for its own sake) and don't seem to change how campers use their religion in everyday life (but maybe this occurs when they get home, it just takes time to implement these changes). Of course, campers may change on variables that we didn't study and it's important to remember that, as well. Hope this clarifies the positive role that Christian camps can have on the spiritual life of youth in the course of a week.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Assessing the Church
A few months ago, Willow Creek conducted a series of surveys to assess how churches were promoting spiritual growth in the congregation. If you would like to read about the results, you can visit the REVEAL blog. Since my research area is essentially focused on how people grow in their faith and since I work with a small business that does church consulting, I consider myself to have some authority on this topic. Although I have thought about the study quite a bit, I really want to focus this discussion on the place of assessment in the church.
There are four main issues related to church assessment: (1) what do we measure? (2) how do we measure? (3) what do we learn? (4) what do we miss?
1) What do we measure? Or, in other words, how do you measure someone's spirituality? Now there will be some who argue that spirituality is a completely personal affair and therefore it is impossible to measure it objectively. But I find this unpersuasive, as spirituality inherently stretches beyond the mystical, and is full of theological beliefs that we either hold to or deny, religious behaviors we either engage in or don't, and phenomenon we either experience or don't. To say that our spirituality is devoid of anything religious is to say something objective about our spirituality.
Next, on this same point, we need to consider what are the important variables inherent to faith. Sometimes we make these decisions based upon theological reasoning. For instance, it makes sense not to study how food preferences are related to religious behavior. And the flipside could be that it makes sense to study how prayer is related to a sense of closeness to God. These are our a priori theological beliefs that can inform us. But additionally, we can simply use trial and error, in a scientific manner, to figure out what variables are important to study. For example, one study may look at 10 different variables related to church attendance and find that only one is significantly related to it. We would therefore decide to further study that variable, since it seems to be important (if our theological beliefs state that church attendance is a good thing).
2) The question of how we measure spirituality is also an important one. Are we to assume that those who rate themselves as a 10 (out of 10) on closeness to God are really closer to God? Should we even use paper and pencil (or nowadays, computers) to assess someone's spirituality? Should we rely on spiritual exemplars to study what factors are important to spirituality? It is easy to generate more and more questions. But the truth is that we need to start somewhere. Face-to-face interviews are time consuming. Using spiritual exemplars risks finding people who have their outsides clean. And of course paper and pencil measures have plenty of problems. The real place to start is by engaging a variety of different methods. We should not limit ourselves to one way of approaching the problem.
3) What do we learn from assessment? Assessment can tell us whatever we want to know. It can tell us if people like the preacher's sermons. It can tell us how people use their faith to deal with problems. The real task is learning to ask the right questions. What is most essential to the life of the church? This means that we must really dig in to the Word, explore our theology, and dialog with people from other denominational and faith backgrounds. Again, the point is to begin the discussion. Willow Creek seems to have been scared prematurely by their findings. If we learn anything from the REVEAL study, it's that we should not shift paradigm's too quickly but we should also not be afraid to admit we have been doing things wrong.
4) What do we miss? By this I meant that we should always be aware that we have blindspots. Assessment is never going to be comprehensive so we should always be willing to take a step back and look at the full picture, as best as we can. No one in the congregation may realize that using multimedia in sermons is affecting them and assessment is unlikely to evaluate this issue, but that doesn't mean it's not an issue, for instance.
REVEAL is the first large scale step towards something that I have become a huge believer in since being in grad school - using assessment to improve our churches. While there are some limitations and problems in REVEAL, it does add a great deal of knowledge and has opened up the Christian culture to the use of assessment. I hope that this trend continues, hopefully without being abused, and allows the church to repent and grow where it needs to.
There are four main issues related to church assessment: (1) what do we measure? (2) how do we measure? (3) what do we learn? (4) what do we miss?
1) What do we measure? Or, in other words, how do you measure someone's spirituality? Now there will be some who argue that spirituality is a completely personal affair and therefore it is impossible to measure it objectively. But I find this unpersuasive, as spirituality inherently stretches beyond the mystical, and is full of theological beliefs that we either hold to or deny, religious behaviors we either engage in or don't, and phenomenon we either experience or don't. To say that our spirituality is devoid of anything religious is to say something objective about our spirituality.
Next, on this same point, we need to consider what are the important variables inherent to faith. Sometimes we make these decisions based upon theological reasoning. For instance, it makes sense not to study how food preferences are related to religious behavior. And the flipside could be that it makes sense to study how prayer is related to a sense of closeness to God. These are our a priori theological beliefs that can inform us. But additionally, we can simply use trial and error, in a scientific manner, to figure out what variables are important to study. For example, one study may look at 10 different variables related to church attendance and find that only one is significantly related to it. We would therefore decide to further study that variable, since it seems to be important (if our theological beliefs state that church attendance is a good thing).
2) The question of how we measure spirituality is also an important one. Are we to assume that those who rate themselves as a 10 (out of 10) on closeness to God are really closer to God? Should we even use paper and pencil (or nowadays, computers) to assess someone's spirituality? Should we rely on spiritual exemplars to study what factors are important to spirituality? It is easy to generate more and more questions. But the truth is that we need to start somewhere. Face-to-face interviews are time consuming. Using spiritual exemplars risks finding people who have their outsides clean. And of course paper and pencil measures have plenty of problems. The real place to start is by engaging a variety of different methods. We should not limit ourselves to one way of approaching the problem.
3) What do we learn from assessment? Assessment can tell us whatever we want to know. It can tell us if people like the preacher's sermons. It can tell us how people use their faith to deal with problems. The real task is learning to ask the right questions. What is most essential to the life of the church? This means that we must really dig in to the Word, explore our theology, and dialog with people from other denominational and faith backgrounds. Again, the point is to begin the discussion. Willow Creek seems to have been scared prematurely by their findings. If we learn anything from the REVEAL study, it's that we should not shift paradigm's too quickly but we should also not be afraid to admit we have been doing things wrong.
4) What do we miss? By this I meant that we should always be aware that we have blindspots. Assessment is never going to be comprehensive so we should always be willing to take a step back and look at the full picture, as best as we can. No one in the congregation may realize that using multimedia in sermons is affecting them and assessment is unlikely to evaluate this issue, but that doesn't mean it's not an issue, for instance.
REVEAL is the first large scale step towards something that I have become a huge believer in since being in grad school - using assessment to improve our churches. While there are some limitations and problems in REVEAL, it does add a great deal of knowledge and has opened up the Christian culture to the use of assessment. I hope that this trend continues, hopefully without being abused, and allows the church to repent and grow where it needs to.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Chapter 2 of Christians who Counsel by Ray Anderson discusses the human being as an integrated being that must be counseled through integrative means. Anderson states that humans are a gestalt of subsystems that include the social, personal, sexual, psychical, and spiritual. People progress through these subsystems in a developmental fashion, although not in a cut and dry stage manner. We continue to have difficulties in each subsystem throughout our lifetimes and problems in one subsystem will often create problems in other subsystems.
A second way in which we must be integrative beings is that we need to grow in relationship to God, others, and ourself. If we have problems in one realm that will create problems in the other realms. These realms are placed on equal standing, with no one relationship being more important than the others, which means that our relationship with God is not considered to the primary issue through which all other relationships are subject. Instead, relationships with others and self are considered to be so categorically different that they must not be treated as inferior in the quest for wholeness.
In order to facilitate growth towards an integrated being, therapy must utilize hermeneutics, narrative, and eschatology. Hermeneutics means the process of interpreting. Thus, counseling needs to help the client re-interpret life events so that they will have different meaning, perhaps even a spiritual significance. Next, counseling utilizes narrative by allowing the client to see his or her story as placed within the story of his community and thereby creates a value-oriented world for the client to enter. Finally, counseling must involve a look at eschatology or the end times. Having an eternal perspective can allow the client to gather a more global view of the world and their own personal and social problems.
What I enjoyed about this chapter was that it was anthropological. It began with a look into what a whole human being ought to be and therefore provided a goal for where therapy could lead. This is helpful because many theories for counseling do not have a clear vision for health and therefore can potentially remove one pathology only to have it replaced with another. But the chapter also described how wholeness could be promoted through specific growth promoting processes. I enjoyed that the hermeneutical task was more than just changing specific beliefs but was focused on changing entire worldviews. Overall, I really thought that this chapter laid a solid foundation for which therapy could be built upon.
A second way in which we must be integrative beings is that we need to grow in relationship to God, others, and ourself. If we have problems in one realm that will create problems in the other realms. These realms are placed on equal standing, with no one relationship being more important than the others, which means that our relationship with God is not considered to the primary issue through which all other relationships are subject. Instead, relationships with others and self are considered to be so categorically different that they must not be treated as inferior in the quest for wholeness.
In order to facilitate growth towards an integrated being, therapy must utilize hermeneutics, narrative, and eschatology. Hermeneutics means the process of interpreting. Thus, counseling needs to help the client re-interpret life events so that they will have different meaning, perhaps even a spiritual significance. Next, counseling utilizes narrative by allowing the client to see his or her story as placed within the story of his community and thereby creates a value-oriented world for the client to enter. Finally, counseling must involve a look at eschatology or the end times. Having an eternal perspective can allow the client to gather a more global view of the world and their own personal and social problems.
What I enjoyed about this chapter was that it was anthropological. It began with a look into what a whole human being ought to be and therefore provided a goal for where therapy could lead. This is helpful because many theories for counseling do not have a clear vision for health and therefore can potentially remove one pathology only to have it replaced with another. But the chapter also described how wholeness could be promoted through specific growth promoting processes. I enjoyed that the hermeneutical task was more than just changing specific beliefs but was focused on changing entire worldviews. Overall, I really thought that this chapter laid a solid foundation for which therapy could be built upon.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Authenticity
Have you ever wondered why we have a layer of being that is below everything that seems to completely liberate us when we find it. Or maybe wonder at why we don't operate at that level more? I'm talking about that way of relating that makes us feel completely content. You feel after you've had a long heart-to-heart or when you've shared a secret that has been pressing down on you and been received with grace.
I think it is one of the mysteries of life why we were created with the need for authenticity. That seems to be what is behind our enjoyment of such times. We thrill at having authentic relationships.
I think the joy we feel at such moments reveals a lot about the way we ought to live our lives. The scariest moments of life are when we reveal something sacred about ourselves to someone else. But, when handled right, those are the most blessed moments as well. I can't resist putting it in spiritual terms because there seems to be nothing mundane about such moments of meeting.
I wish I could live my life with more authenticity. When I was in therapy, I found it difficult to open up and reveal what was at my core. I deeply longed to be called out, to be invited into authentic relationship. But such times and such relationships are scarce. Although I find that I can be sustained by these moments for a long time, I still long for such times to come with more regularity. I want to pour out my heart to someone without holding anything back.
I wish that I could learn to live with less fear of authenticity. I wish I had the capacity to live authentically at every moment. I feel that this kind of relationship is the one that God craves. I believe that God desires it more than anything else. Because out of such authenticity does true connection come. And in that connection there seems to be a power that grows us in love. If only we could find that power more often as we go about our lives.
I think it is one of the mysteries of life why we were created with the need for authenticity. That seems to be what is behind our enjoyment of such times. We thrill at having authentic relationships.
I think the joy we feel at such moments reveals a lot about the way we ought to live our lives. The scariest moments of life are when we reveal something sacred about ourselves to someone else. But, when handled right, those are the most blessed moments as well. I can't resist putting it in spiritual terms because there seems to be nothing mundane about such moments of meeting.
I wish I could live my life with more authenticity. When I was in therapy, I found it difficult to open up and reveal what was at my core. I deeply longed to be called out, to be invited into authentic relationship. But such times and such relationships are scarce. Although I find that I can be sustained by these moments for a long time, I still long for such times to come with more regularity. I want to pour out my heart to someone without holding anything back.
I wish that I could learn to live with less fear of authenticity. I wish I had the capacity to live authentically at every moment. I feel that this kind of relationship is the one that God craves. I believe that God desires it more than anything else. Because out of such authenticity does true connection come. And in that connection there seems to be a power that grows us in love. If only we could find that power more often as we go about our lives.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Relational Evil
In my young adult class at church, we've been trying to figure out what constitutes evil. In a world where absolute morality has lost its appeal, we need to envision culturally relevant and intellectually sophisticated arguments for the reality of evil. Rather than seeing evil as trespassing an archaic rule, it seems that we need to gain an understanding of evil that respects those rules while finding a deeper and truer principle. So we've developed this definition of evil:Evil is a system that breaks relational ties with God, with others, with myself, and with nature.
Thus, evil is anything that destroys a relationship. Now we are by no means the ones that came up with such a definition. But I hope that I can help popularize such a view as I believe that it encompasses all evil in the world. Not only does it condemn those actions that are obviously evil, such as murder, theft, and idolatry, but it also helps us see actions such as insensitivity to others as being evil as well.
Now I'm aware that the acceptance of this definition hinges on the ability of individuals to recognize that connectedness is a good thing. And there are plenty of people who wish to be islands to themselves. But I believe that at some level all people recognize that they need to be harmony with the universe.
Such a definition is tricky. Because it means that we are labeling as evil acts that were not done with malicious intentions. But I believe that as we become more spiritually aware, we will see that we have sinned against all creation by our self-centeredness and greed. What are your thoughts?
Thus, evil is anything that destroys a relationship. Now we are by no means the ones that came up with such a definition. But I hope that I can help popularize such a view as I believe that it encompasses all evil in the world. Not only does it condemn those actions that are obviously evil, such as murder, theft, and idolatry, but it also helps us see actions such as insensitivity to others as being evil as well.
Now I'm aware that the acceptance of this definition hinges on the ability of individuals to recognize that connectedness is a good thing. And there are plenty of people who wish to be islands to themselves. But I believe that at some level all people recognize that they need to be harmony with the universe.
Such a definition is tricky. Because it means that we are labeling as evil acts that were not done with malicious intentions. But I believe that as we become more spiritually aware, we will see that we have sinned against all creation by our self-centeredness and greed. What are your thoughts?
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Sex and the Human Spirit
I read an interesting article in Relevant Magazine on chastity. Unfortunately I could not find the article online so I am reflecting on it by memory.
The author pointed out that there is a difference between abstinence and chastity. Abstinence is merely not doing it while chastity is something much more. Being chaste means valuing purity as a way of life. I liked this important differentiation because it highlights that sexual purity is more than merely a lack of behaviors. I'd posit that the reason that abstinence pledges tend not to be very effective is that they do not acknowledge the values and thoughts that lead to a chaste lifestyle.
The second point that I appreciated hearing anew was that sexual intimacy without emotional attachment is unhealthy. While most people in our culture tend to think that guilt over sexual acting out is a symptom of an unhealthy approach to sexuality, the author argued that the opposite was actually true. Those who can detach themselves from their sexual experiences are often quite emotionally unhealthy.
On this second point I'd like to add a few of my own thoughts. I have come to appreciate more and more the unified nature of our selves. We cannot detach our bodies from our emotions. As such, the belief that we can share ourselves in a physically intimate way without emotional intimacy is ungrounded.
In addition, I believe that the large majority of human sexuality is actually not caused by "sexual" arousal. I have noticed in myself the drive for sexuality is increased when I feel disconnected and lonely. And I also notice that there are numerous links between sexuality and fear and anger and selfishness. I think healthy sexuality will come when we recognize that our cravings are not for human flesh but for spirit and relationship.
Care to disagree? Please share your thoughts.
The author pointed out that there is a difference between abstinence and chastity. Abstinence is merely not doing it while chastity is something much more. Being chaste means valuing purity as a way of life. I liked this important differentiation because it highlights that sexual purity is more than merely a lack of behaviors. I'd posit that the reason that abstinence pledges tend not to be very effective is that they do not acknowledge the values and thoughts that lead to a chaste lifestyle.
The second point that I appreciated hearing anew was that sexual intimacy without emotional attachment is unhealthy. While most people in our culture tend to think that guilt over sexual acting out is a symptom of an unhealthy approach to sexuality, the author argued that the opposite was actually true. Those who can detach themselves from their sexual experiences are often quite emotionally unhealthy.
On this second point I'd like to add a few of my own thoughts. I have come to appreciate more and more the unified nature of our selves. We cannot detach our bodies from our emotions. As such, the belief that we can share ourselves in a physically intimate way without emotional intimacy is ungrounded.
In addition, I believe that the large majority of human sexuality is actually not caused by "sexual" arousal. I have noticed in myself the drive for sexuality is increased when I feel disconnected and lonely. And I also notice that there are numerous links between sexuality and fear and anger and selfishness. I think healthy sexuality will come when we recognize that our cravings are not for human flesh but for spirit and relationship.
Care to disagree? Please share your thoughts.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
The Addiction Tightrope
For Christians who believe in moral culpability, the concept of addiction is a sticky one. Very few deny that addictions can occur for various controlling substances and most do not deny behavioral addictions, such as gambling and sex addiction. The question remains: where is our free will? Most people believe that people with addictions have some free will and ability to choose. However, the experience of many of those who cannot overcome addiction is that they do not. Who is right?
I probably stand on the side that sympathizes more with those who are addicted. I believe that they have very little resources to be able to stop their behavior. In fact, I think that, on their own, they have almost no control over their addiction. The problem is that most addicts and most critics of addicts think in terms of controlling their addictive behavior. This is not helpful. This only leads to more frustration and hopelessness.
Addicts typically do not have power over their addiction. But they do have control in other areas of their lives, which can have power over their addiction. The whole premise of the 12 step program is that God can do for you what you could not do for yourself. While I cannot resolve whether or not addicts have control over their addictive behavior, I do not need to. Those who have become addicted to substances or behaviors can always find their "higher power" in order to be free. Why debate whether or not we can have control over our actions? With God's help, problems can be resolved.
We are all slaves to sin. We ought to learn these same lessons for ourselves.
As a final note, most people have tried to cry out to God for help. God does not desire momentary wishes for freedom; God wills that we give our lives over to him completely. In that lifestyle of surrender, there is freedom from addiction and slavery.
I probably stand on the side that sympathizes more with those who are addicted. I believe that they have very little resources to be able to stop their behavior. In fact, I think that, on their own, they have almost no control over their addiction. The problem is that most addicts and most critics of addicts think in terms of controlling their addictive behavior. This is not helpful. This only leads to more frustration and hopelessness.
Addicts typically do not have power over their addiction. But they do have control in other areas of their lives, which can have power over their addiction. The whole premise of the 12 step program is that God can do for you what you could not do for yourself. While I cannot resolve whether or not addicts have control over their addictive behavior, I do not need to. Those who have become addicted to substances or behaviors can always find their "higher power" in order to be free. Why debate whether or not we can have control over our actions? With God's help, problems can be resolved.
We are all slaves to sin. We ought to learn these same lessons for ourselves.
As a final note, most people have tried to cry out to God for help. God does not desire momentary wishes for freedom; God wills that we give our lives over to him completely. In that lifestyle of surrender, there is freedom from addiction and slavery.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
The God Who Feels
Those of us who belong to the Christian faith believe in a God who feels. God has revealed his redemption through sorrow and pain. He has delivered us into a life that was meant to be filled with joy. We worship a God who weeps when confronted with death, becomes furious when confronted with injustice, and sweats drops of blood out of fear of upcoming agony.
Our God is not dispassionate. He is full of life and all the various emotions that go along with living.
For humans that have been created in God's image and who are instructed to be like Jesus, God's incarnated son, the lesson is clear. We are to live out our lives in the midst of a wide sea of emotions. Amongst our feelings of anger, fear, joy, sadness, and even sexuality, let us find the life God has set before us to live.
Our God is not dispassionate. He is full of life and all the various emotions that go along with living.
For humans that have been created in God's image and who are instructed to be like Jesus, God's incarnated son, the lesson is clear. We are to live out our lives in the midst of a wide sea of emotions. Amongst our feelings of anger, fear, joy, sadness, and even sexuality, let us find the life God has set before us to live.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)