What do you think?
Rate this book
Four Temperaments, Astrology, and Personality Testing
FOUR TEMPERAMENTS, ASTROLOGY & PERSONALITY TESTING examines and answers the following •What is the connection of the four temperaments, astrology, and personality testing?•Why are the four temperaments so popular among Christians, even though they have almost disappeared from the field of psychology?•Do the four temperaments and other personality typologies give true insight into a person’s thoughts, emotions, or behavior?•Can knowing personality types and temperaments foster Christian love and maturity?•Are there any biblically or scientifically established temperament or personality types?•Are personality inventories and tests valid ways of finding out about people?
- GenresNonfiction
220 pages, Paperback
First published May 5, 1992
22 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
February 28, 2016
Over the last few months, I've been looking into Myers-Briggs personality functions and trying to understand the MBTI typing system. I've been doing this for a very specific purpose: as an author, it's a challenge trying to create complex, three-dimensional characters who behave consistently throughout their character arcs. Having a simple-but-not-too-simple rubric to test whether a character is behaving consistently has been a boon to my characterisation. It's also been very helpful when trying to imagine characters seeing things from a different point of view to my own and to each others'. Great for consistency, great for variety, great for conflict.
At the same time, I'm conscious that the MBTI system is based on the theories of Carl Jung, that flagrant pagan; that tests designed to diagnose it have basically zero scientific validity; and that personality typing as a field is full of pitfalls. Real people are more complex than four or nine or sixteen temperaments. Giving yourself or others a label is a big temptation to determinism - "oh, So-and-So is a choleric, he's prone to angry outbursts" - when a more Scriptural response would be to point out that outbursts of wrath are one of the fruits of the flesh. And if God thought knowing our personality type was all that important to life and holiness, he'd have provided us with scriptures to base a system on, instead of what we get, which is a pretty clear (and stark) divide between righteousness and sin.
That said, Myers-Briggs typing has been a useful tool to me, and it's been fun to discuss it with my family. So when a friend started telling me about this book, I was keen to borrow it and read it in the hopes of sharpening myself on this issue.
I'm divided on whether I'd recommend this book.
It focuses mainly on the Four Temperaments typing so prevalent in Christian circles since Tim LaHaye popularised it. (That used to mystify me for years. Here was this ancient Greek snake oil based on a long-exploded pseudoscience of bodily humours, that should have been forgotten with everything else Galen wrote, and my elders and betters, state-schooled to the hilt, used it in everyday speech? It was like if your parents perfectly seriously told you to pack your bags one day, you were off on a family trip to Diagon Alley, and you knew for a fact that they'd never read Harry Potter.) The authors start the book by doing a decent job explaining the historical roots of this Four Temperaments typing (and how hilarious it is).
As part of this, they show the link between astrology and the Four Temperaments. The idea was that the stars and planets had a physical effect on our bodies, and that the four humours in our bodies were affected by that, and that personality was affected as a result. Having read CS Lewis's The Discarded Image, I knew a lot about this already. According to Lewis, the church back in the middle ages had to fight against astrological/personality type determinism as well, which it did by emphasising that though the planets might have an influence upon our body and its humours (this being commonly-accepted "scientific" "knowledge"), that influence could affect neither our reason nor our will. Man was still understood to be free, obliged to answer to God for his actions.
Where I thought the authors made a massive leap in their logic was by saying that a) this link with astrology is a link with the occult and b) therefore, all modern-day manifestations of the four-temperament system are necessarily tainted with occult/astrological significance. Astrology is more of a fringe thing these days, but back in the ancient and medieval world it was simply the closest thing they had to a working science of the skies. Think of it like the theory of evolution today: rooted in a pagan worldview, yet nevertheless quite commonly accepted. There was nothing spooky or occult about astrology back then; not like an ancient mystery cult, the Eleusian mystery cults or Mithras-worship. All the great Christian natural philosophers would have been proficient in it: Kepler and Tycho Brahe, for two examples. This is not to say it didn't have roots in paganism. It quite clearly did (although it was quickly--by Augustine, in The City of God--transmuted into a form which, if not based in Scripture, was at any rate not blatantly inconsistent with it).
These days, astrology is closely associated with the occult following its widespread discreditation, which, together with its roots in paganism, is a good reason to avoid it. However, the authors of this book claim that because of the link between the four temperaments and astrology hundreds of years ago, that "Tests to determine the four temperaments are on the same spiritual level as charting the horoscope." I'd consider that an example of the genetic fallacy. Unless people like LaHaye are seriously teaching that the ascendancy of Libra at the time of your birth has resulted in an excess of blood in your body, or that you should pop down to the local temple of Mercury to seek his benign influence in correcting a lack of blood in your body, this is stretching logic. Obviously LaHaye's version of the four temperaments, far removed as even the authors of this book admit it is from its pagan Greek roots, is simply an unproven and arbitrary sorting of personality traits. It calls upon scientific proof and statistical evidence to support its claims; not nonsense about being born during the ascendancy of Sagittarius or something. Therefore it's the scientific proof and statistical evidence by which we should test it.
Where the book does a good job is in showing just how absent any scientific proof and statistical evidence is from all such personality typings. The authors take a scattershot approach at a whole barrage of popular personality type systems. I found their comments on the two testing criteria of reliability and validity immensely helpful. Reliability: does the same person get a similar result on the test on Monday as he did on Friday? Validity: does the test actually measure what it claims to measure? The authors do a terrific job of demonstrating that personality tests do not.
I would have liked a more in-depth critique of the Jungian roots of MBTI. What there was, while fascinating, left me with more questions than answers. This is something I mean to study in more depth where possible, and whether because of space constraints or more gaps in logic, I didn't find what they said here particularly helpful.
Another good thing the book does is demonstrate the power that personality typing can have. Christian proponents of personality typing may often claim that it's "essential" to our spiritual growth or that with it, lives can be changed for the better. I think the authors of this book are right in calling this kind of thing a "false gospel", and I've often noticed people falling into the trap of evaluating their own or others' behaviour not through Scriptural categories of sin and righteousness but through personality typing.
That said, as human beings, we deal with the world through generalisations. One person's besetting sin may be wrath, while another's may be the opposite, sloth. "Oh, he's a phlegmatic, and so I didn't expect him to take a stand for his beliefs like that" is after all the same thing as "I never thought he had the spirit to take a stand like that; I'd have thought him too easygoing, too prone to the sin of sloth". No matter whether you're using the language of the four temperaments or not, we tend to stereotype people, make generalisations about them based on their behaviour, and expect them to act in the future based on those generalisations. That this can, at worst, become a form of behavioural determinism dressed up in the language of modern psychoanalysis or ancient pseudoscience, does not necessarily mean that generalisations can never be true or useful.
Finally, there were passages in this book where I wanted to stand up and cheer. For me, personality typing has always paled into irrelevance compared to what the Word of God has to say about sin and holiness. Many of the finest passages in this book were a rousing call to refocus, to rethink, and to rededicate myself to leaning first and foremost on Scripture: "The Lord has not instructed us to evaluate ourselves according to our personalities, but rather according to His Word." Amen.
(Unexpectedly long review is unexpectedly long. This was such a thought-provoking book!)
At the same time, I'm conscious that the MBTI system is based on the theories of Carl Jung, that flagrant pagan; that tests designed to diagnose it have basically zero scientific validity; and that personality typing as a field is full of pitfalls. Real people are more complex than four or nine or sixteen temperaments. Giving yourself or others a label is a big temptation to determinism - "oh, So-and-So is a choleric, he's prone to angry outbursts" - when a more Scriptural response would be to point out that outbursts of wrath are one of the fruits of the flesh. And if God thought knowing our personality type was all that important to life and holiness, he'd have provided us with scriptures to base a system on, instead of what we get, which is a pretty clear (and stark) divide between righteousness and sin.
That said, Myers-Briggs typing has been a useful tool to me, and it's been fun to discuss it with my family. So when a friend started telling me about this book, I was keen to borrow it and read it in the hopes of sharpening myself on this issue.
I'm divided on whether I'd recommend this book.
It focuses mainly on the Four Temperaments typing so prevalent in Christian circles since Tim LaHaye popularised it. (That used to mystify me for years. Here was this ancient Greek snake oil based on a long-exploded pseudoscience of bodily humours, that should have been forgotten with everything else Galen wrote, and my elders and betters, state-schooled to the hilt, used it in everyday speech? It was like if your parents perfectly seriously told you to pack your bags one day, you were off on a family trip to Diagon Alley, and you knew for a fact that they'd never read Harry Potter.) The authors start the book by doing a decent job explaining the historical roots of this Four Temperaments typing (and how hilarious it is).
As part of this, they show the link between astrology and the Four Temperaments. The idea was that the stars and planets had a physical effect on our bodies, and that the four humours in our bodies were affected by that, and that personality was affected as a result. Having read CS Lewis's The Discarded Image, I knew a lot about this already. According to Lewis, the church back in the middle ages had to fight against astrological/personality type determinism as well, which it did by emphasising that though the planets might have an influence upon our body and its humours (this being commonly-accepted "scientific" "knowledge"), that influence could affect neither our reason nor our will. Man was still understood to be free, obliged to answer to God for his actions.
Where I thought the authors made a massive leap in their logic was by saying that a) this link with astrology is a link with the occult and b) therefore, all modern-day manifestations of the four-temperament system are necessarily tainted with occult/astrological significance. Astrology is more of a fringe thing these days, but back in the ancient and medieval world it was simply the closest thing they had to a working science of the skies. Think of it like the theory of evolution today: rooted in a pagan worldview, yet nevertheless quite commonly accepted. There was nothing spooky or occult about astrology back then; not like an ancient mystery cult, the Eleusian mystery cults or Mithras-worship. All the great Christian natural philosophers would have been proficient in it: Kepler and Tycho Brahe, for two examples. This is not to say it didn't have roots in paganism. It quite clearly did (although it was quickly--by Augustine, in The City of God--transmuted into a form which, if not based in Scripture, was at any rate not blatantly inconsistent with it).
These days, astrology is closely associated with the occult following its widespread discreditation, which, together with its roots in paganism, is a good reason to avoid it. However, the authors of this book claim that because of the link between the four temperaments and astrology hundreds of years ago, that "Tests to determine the four temperaments are on the same spiritual level as charting the horoscope." I'd consider that an example of the genetic fallacy. Unless people like LaHaye are seriously teaching that the ascendancy of Libra at the time of your birth has resulted in an excess of blood in your body, or that you should pop down to the local temple of Mercury to seek his benign influence in correcting a lack of blood in your body, this is stretching logic. Obviously LaHaye's version of the four temperaments, far removed as even the authors of this book admit it is from its pagan Greek roots, is simply an unproven and arbitrary sorting of personality traits. It calls upon scientific proof and statistical evidence to support its claims; not nonsense about being born during the ascendancy of Sagittarius or something. Therefore it's the scientific proof and statistical evidence by which we should test it.
Where the book does a good job is in showing just how absent any scientific proof and statistical evidence is from all such personality typings. The authors take a scattershot approach at a whole barrage of popular personality type systems. I found their comments on the two testing criteria of reliability and validity immensely helpful. Reliability: does the same person get a similar result on the test on Monday as he did on Friday? Validity: does the test actually measure what it claims to measure? The authors do a terrific job of demonstrating that personality tests do not.
I would have liked a more in-depth critique of the Jungian roots of MBTI. What there was, while fascinating, left me with more questions than answers. This is something I mean to study in more depth where possible, and whether because of space constraints or more gaps in logic, I didn't find what they said here particularly helpful.
Another good thing the book does is demonstrate the power that personality typing can have. Christian proponents of personality typing may often claim that it's "essential" to our spiritual growth or that with it, lives can be changed for the better. I think the authors of this book are right in calling this kind of thing a "false gospel", and I've often noticed people falling into the trap of evaluating their own or others' behaviour not through Scriptural categories of sin and righteousness but through personality typing.
That said, as human beings, we deal with the world through generalisations. One person's besetting sin may be wrath, while another's may be the opposite, sloth. "Oh, he's a phlegmatic, and so I didn't expect him to take a stand for his beliefs like that" is after all the same thing as "I never thought he had the spirit to take a stand like that; I'd have thought him too easygoing, too prone to the sin of sloth". No matter whether you're using the language of the four temperaments or not, we tend to stereotype people, make generalisations about them based on their behaviour, and expect them to act in the future based on those generalisations. That this can, at worst, become a form of behavioural determinism dressed up in the language of modern psychoanalysis or ancient pseudoscience, does not necessarily mean that generalisations can never be true or useful.
Finally, there were passages in this book where I wanted to stand up and cheer. For me, personality typing has always paled into irrelevance compared to what the Word of God has to say about sin and holiness. Many of the finest passages in this book were a rousing call to refocus, to rethink, and to rededicate myself to leaning first and foremost on Scripture: "The Lord has not instructed us to evaluate ourselves according to our personalities, but rather according to His Word." Amen.
(Unexpectedly long review is unexpectedly long. This was such a thought-provoking book!)
August 19, 2024
ARE WE ALL ONE OF FOUR BASIC "PERSONALITY TYPES"? THE BOBGANS DISAGREE…
Married couple Martin and Deidre Bobgan run "Psychoheresy Awareness Ministries"; Martin has a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology, and Deidre has an M.A. in English. They have written many other books, such as ‘Psychoheresy,’ 'How to Counsel from Scripture,' 'Prophets of Psychoheresy I,' 'Prophets of PsychoHeresy II: Critiquing Dr. James C. Dobson,' 'CRI Guilty of Psychoheresy?,' 'Hypnosis and the Christian,' 'Twelve Steps to Destruction: Codependency/Recovery Heresies,' 'Four Temperaments,' etc.
They wrote in the first chapter of this 1992 book, "Numerous Christians believe they can gain great insight into themselves and others by studying the personality characteristics of the four temperaments ... Testimonies abound... Mothers are convinced that once they discover whether their children are little Sanguines, Cholerics, Melancholics, or Phlegmatics, then they will be able to understand why their children behave the way they do." (Pg. 3-4)
They add, "Another reason for the four temperaments' popularity may be their fleshly appeal. Those who encourage Christians to utilize the four temperaments for spiritual growth consistently warn against using temperament weaknesses as excuses for behavior. Unfortunately... Whenever sinful behavior is relabeled 'weaknesses,' there is a dwindling sense of responsibility and a gnawing sense of being trapped in helplessness." (Pg. 11)
They point out, "The four temperaments and other personality type systems did not originate from Scripture. They are part of that philosophical/psychological pool of man-made systems and personal opinions which attempt to explain the nature of man and present methods for change." (Pg. 15) They state, "Christians do not need pagan beliefs and practices, such as the four temperaments, to grow spiritually. If they did, the Bible would have included such teachings." (Pg. 43) They note that "[Tim] LaHaye introduced the four temperaments to evangelical Christians in 1966... in writing his book Spirit-Controlled Temperament." (Pg. 50-51)
They argue, "As much as psychologists attempt to utilize the wisdom of man to improve the natural man or to enhance the sanctification process, the theories and therapies of the world are both intrinsically and ultimately at odds with the Word of God and the Work of the Holy Spirit. There is no biblical mandate to understand ourselves according to four categories of traits in order to reach a so-called 'God-given potential.' Great theological confusion arises when anyone attempts to mix godless systems of understanding the nature of man with what the Bible says about mankind and the dynamics of human behavior." (Pg. 86)
They conclude, "Personality typologies and tests put people under bondage to world systems and standards. Each psychological system presents a theory to explain the human condition, describes how they should be, and presents a method of change. Thus each system condemns people through a man-made standard of judgment concerning how they should be, and each system presents a plan and promise for change." (Pg. 188)
The Bobgans' books are essential reading for any Christians concerned about overuse/misuse of psychology.
Married couple Martin and Deidre Bobgan run "Psychoheresy Awareness Ministries"; Martin has a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology, and Deidre has an M.A. in English. They have written many other books, such as ‘Psychoheresy,’ 'How to Counsel from Scripture,' 'Prophets of Psychoheresy I,' 'Prophets of PsychoHeresy II: Critiquing Dr. James C. Dobson,' 'CRI Guilty of Psychoheresy?,' 'Hypnosis and the Christian,' 'Twelve Steps to Destruction: Codependency/Recovery Heresies,' 'Four Temperaments,' etc.
They wrote in the first chapter of this 1992 book, "Numerous Christians believe they can gain great insight into themselves and others by studying the personality characteristics of the four temperaments ... Testimonies abound... Mothers are convinced that once they discover whether their children are little Sanguines, Cholerics, Melancholics, or Phlegmatics, then they will be able to understand why their children behave the way they do." (Pg. 3-4)
They add, "Another reason for the four temperaments' popularity may be their fleshly appeal. Those who encourage Christians to utilize the four temperaments for spiritual growth consistently warn against using temperament weaknesses as excuses for behavior. Unfortunately... Whenever sinful behavior is relabeled 'weaknesses,' there is a dwindling sense of responsibility and a gnawing sense of being trapped in helplessness." (Pg. 11)
They point out, "The four temperaments and other personality type systems did not originate from Scripture. They are part of that philosophical/psychological pool of man-made systems and personal opinions which attempt to explain the nature of man and present methods for change." (Pg. 15) They state, "Christians do not need pagan beliefs and practices, such as the four temperaments, to grow spiritually. If they did, the Bible would have included such teachings." (Pg. 43) They note that "[Tim] LaHaye introduced the four temperaments to evangelical Christians in 1966... in writing his book Spirit-Controlled Temperament." (Pg. 50-51)
They argue, "As much as psychologists attempt to utilize the wisdom of man to improve the natural man or to enhance the sanctification process, the theories and therapies of the world are both intrinsically and ultimately at odds with the Word of God and the Work of the Holy Spirit. There is no biblical mandate to understand ourselves according to four categories of traits in order to reach a so-called 'God-given potential.' Great theological confusion arises when anyone attempts to mix godless systems of understanding the nature of man with what the Bible says about mankind and the dynamics of human behavior." (Pg. 86)
They conclude, "Personality typologies and tests put people under bondage to world systems and standards. Each psychological system presents a theory to explain the human condition, describes how they should be, and presents a method of change. Thus each system condemns people through a man-made standard of judgment concerning how they should be, and each system presents a plan and promise for change." (Pg. 188)
The Bobgans' books are essential reading for any Christians concerned about overuse/misuse of psychology.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews