Mere Myers-Briggs?

“Knowing Me, Knowing God” is a book by Malcolm Goldsmith, a pastor and qualified Myers-Briggs practitioner. The author discusses the relevance of the Jungian-inspired Myers-Briggs personality indicator for Church worship and Christian spirituality. Personally, I found the book rather uninteresting - I read about half and just skimmed the rest. But yes, Goldsmith does make a few interesting points, naturally predicated on the reader's prior acceptance of the Myers-Briggs scale in the first place.

Thus, Goldsmith believes (perhaps correctly) that most Church members are Introverts, Intuitives and Feelers, which may create problems for Extroverts, Sensers and Thinkers (he naturally uses these terms in the Myers-Briggs sense). Sensers, who crave clear facts, may not understand the symbols or the intuitive thinking characteristic of much Christian worship, spirituality or Bible interpretation. Extroverts see God at work in the world, while Introverts feel him inside themselves. Extroverts would therefore be more attracted to a church that attempts to put its stamp on society and culture. Thinkers, described by the author as a kind of hard-nosed sceptics or investigators, are ill at home in a church with woolly spirituality, no apologetics, or - conversely – too much undigested dogma. Pastor Goldsmith describes himself as a Thinker.

His conclusion sounds eminently British and essentially says that the Church must strike a balance between different approaches, that God can be worshiped or prayed to in varied ways, and that the Christians should make a serious attempt to reach the majority of the population (which is Sensing rather than Intuitive). Jesus, of course, had all personality types within himself and therefore appealed to everyone – or so Goldsmith wants to think.

One problem with “Knowing Me, Knowing God” is that the author never explains why he believes that a certain approach to spirituality is based on, say, Thinking. Does he base himself on actual psychological research ? Or is the whole thing just speculation and conjecture from his part? Another problem is more theological: if God can be approached through different lenses, as it were, doesn't this mean that God is more “Hindu” than “Christian”? When does a difference in emphasis become a more robust epistemological or even ontological difference? Hinduism, New Age or the perennial philosophy would have no problem with a god that can be approached through different personality types…

I'm not sure how to rate this little book. Part of me only wants to give it two stars, but since it may contain a few things of interest, I eventually decided to give it three.