Psychological Type and Biblical Interpretation among Anglican Clergy in the UK

2012

The SIFT method of biblical hermeneutics and liturgical preaching has its roots in Jungian psychological type theory and maintains that the reading and interpretation of text is shaped by individual preferences within the perceiving process (sensing and intuition) and within the evaluating process (thinking and feeling). The present study tests the empirical foundation for this method by examining the way in which three groups of participants familiar with

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What happened to the fig tree? An empirical study in psychological type and biblical hermeneutics

2012

“…A second group of studies discussed and assessed the psychological type profile of religious professionals, including research conducted in North America (Cabral, 1984;Harbaugh, 1984;Holsworth, 1984;Bigelow, Fitzgerald, Busk, Girault, & Avis, 1998;Francis, Wulff, & Robbins, 2008), in Australia and New Zealand (Francis, Robbins, Kaldor, & Castle, 2009), and in the United Kingdom (Francis, Payne, & Jones, 2001;Francis, Craig, Whinney, Tilley, & Slater, 2007;Craig, Duncan, & Francis, 2006;Francis, Nash, Nash, & Craig, 2007;Francis, Gubb, & Robbins, 2009). A third group of studies has discussed and assessed the association between psychological type and different expressions of religious and spiritual experiences, including studies concerned with attitude toward Christianity (Jones & Francis, 1999;Fearn, Francis, & Wilcox, 2001;Francis, Robbins, Boxer, Lewis, McGuckin, & McDaid, 2003;Francis, Jones, & Craig, 2004), concerned with mystical orientation Francis, 2002;Francis, Village, Robbins, & Ineson, 2007), concerned with charismatic experience (Francis & Jones, 1997;Jones, Francis, & Caig, 2005), concerned with different styles of Christian believing (Francis & Jones 1998, 1999Francis & Ross, 2000, in press), concerned with biblical hermeneutics (Village & Francis, 2005;Francis, Robbins, & Village, 2009;Village, 2010), concerned with dogmatism (Ross, Francis, & Craig, 2005), concerned with belief about the bible and the Holy Spirit (Village, 2005), concerned with responses to Celtic Christianity (Francis, Craig, & Hall, 2008), and concerned with appreciation of sacred buildings (Francis, Williams, Annis, & Robbins, 2008). Clearly many of these writers also assume the compatibility between psychological type theory and the Christian tradition.…”

Section: Psychological Type Theory and Practical Theologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological-type theory and Christian theology: a conflict between implicit and explicit religions?

2013

This study analyses the relationship between psychological type theory and Christian theology through the lens of implicit religion, drawing on the conceptualisation of implicit religion proposed by Edward Bailey, on the methodology for identifying implicit religion proposed by Tatjana Schnell, and on an heuristic framework derived from systematic theology. The case is argued that psychological type theory can be conceptualised as implicit religion and implicit theology in a way that enables dialogue (and conflict) between psychological type theory and Christian theology to be reconceptualised within the established field of the theology of religions. PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPE AND CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 3 Psychological type theoryPsychological type theory has its origins in the pioneering and innovative thinking of Car Jung (see Jung, 1971) and has been developed and extended by a series of self-report measures of psychological type, including the Myers-Brigg Type Indicator (Myers & McCaulley, 1985), the Keirsey Temperament Sorter (Keirsey & Bates, 1978), and the Francis Psychological Type Scales (Francis, 2005). At its heart psychological type theory seems to set out to describe four key ways in which individuals differ. In this sense, psychological type theory belongs to the wider genre of personality theories shaped within the individual differences tradition, including Cattell's Sixteen Personality Factor model (Cattell, Cattell, & Cattell, 1993), Eysenck's Major Three Dimensions model (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991), and the Big Five Factor model (see Costa & McCrae, 1985). What distinguishes psychological type theory, from these other three models, is the emphasis on typology rather than on continua. While Cattell's sixteen factors, Eysenck's three dimensions, and Costa and McCrae's big five factors all seek to locate individuals at various points along each of their preferred continua, psychological type theory seeks to divide individuals into two discrete categories (or types) in terms of each of the four constructs defined by the theory. The location of individuals within two discrete categories on four constructs generates sixteen discrete psychological types.The four constructs of individual difference proposed by psychological type theory distinguish between two orientations (introversion and extraversion), two perceiving functions (sensing and intuition), two judging functions (thinking and feeling), and two attitudes toward the outer world (judging and perceiving). According to this model, the two orientations (introversion and extraversion) and the two attitudes (judging and perceiving) define the kind of context within which the individual human psyche functions. The two perceiving functions (sensing and intuition) and the two judging functions (thinking and feeling) define the mental PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPE AND CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 4 processes involved in interpreting and making sense of the world.The two orientations are concerned with where energy is drawn from and focused. On the one hand, extraverts (E) are...

“…Currently empirical support for this theory has been derived primarily from research conducted among preachers using both quantitative methods (Francis, Robbins, & Village, 2009;Village 2010) and qualitative methods (Francis, 2010(Francis, , 2012a(Francis, , 2012b(Francis, , 2013Francis & Jones, 2011;Francis & Smith, 2012). The aim of the present study is to test the connection between the different psychological type profiles of churchgoers and their perception of listening to the same sermon.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do different psychological types look for different things in sermons? A research note

Stone

Robbins

2015

A sample of 76 Evangelical Anglican churchgoers completed the Francis Psychological Type Scales and rated the importance that they attribute to a sermon speaking to their imagination.The data demonstrated that sermons speaking to the imagination were rated more highly by intuitive types, feeling types, and perceiving types than by sensing types, thinking types, and judging types. Different psychological types look for different things in sermons.