03.04.06
Posted in social science, sunday school journal at 1:35 pm by Brandon
A few weeks ago, I took a spiritual gift inventory for the new member class at our church. (Yes, now that Jen and I know for sure that we’ll be in Grand Rapids for at least the next 3 years, we’re doing what Zalm would term “membering up”.) As a social scientist in training, I find myself hyper-sensitive to tests of my personality. Thus, you should probably read this post with a grain of salt.
It should also be noted that I’m not trying to critique the PERSON who lead the class that followed the spiritual gift inventory, or the administration (though, I’d suggest greater selectivity in choosing the next class’ spiritual gift inventory.) Further, I’m not really trying to deal with the issue of spiritual gifts themselves. Rather, I’m just a little miffed as to the way that the test evaluated my spiritual gifts.
Some of my results were quite predictable. For example, I scored a big goose-egg when it came to speaking in, or interpreting tongues. I think much of that has to do with the tradition in which people are raised. I’ve never really been exposed to these gifts, and though I’m reticent to say that they can never be practiced effectively today, I find it a little odd that people who interpret tongues only interpret spiritual messages, like “shak a laka bulu zangiti” being translated as “Glory be to God most high!” It just seems a tad wierd that a tongue speaker would never, you know, ask “Which way to the restroom?”, “Do my socks match my skirt?”, “You can’t see my boxers through my khakis, can you?”, or “I hope no-one can tell that I just farted.” Anyway, that’s just an aside.
What really struck me were the items measuring evangelism. One particular item really got me. It went something like this: “I desire to be all things to all people in order to win them over.” I strongly disagreed. My reasoning was that I really just wanted to be myself. Another evangelism item reflected a desire to spread the gospel. I strongly agreed with that one. Another item was a double barreled question that combined both the desire to spread the gospel, and the individual’s intent to share the gospel verbally to unbelievers by telling them about the love of God or something. Here, I do have a desire to share the gospel, but I have questions about the methods and modes of that communication…thus, I split the difference.
One tool that quantitative social scientists use to understand if a scale is really getting at what they think it’s getting at, is a reliability analysis. Essentially, reliablility is the idea that if scale items are each measuring the same thing and doing it well, they should be highly correlated with one another. Logically, this makes sense. If I asked you three questions about an identical topic, you should give me similar answers each time. If however, I asked you three questions about a topic I believed to be identical and you gave me three very different answers, I would know that I probably didn’t ask questions that were really getting at the topic at hand.
My answers to the evangelism questions are as divergent as possible. I would suspect that others displayed the same unreliablity.
Beyond unreliability, I think there’s a greater issue with this particular scale (and, I’m picking on evangelism here, but I feel that there were a plethora of reliability issues with the scale.) I’m not sure that it’s really on target. I mean, I think that it could reliably measure the spiritual personality of a modern with regard to evangelism, but for a pomo, it falls flat. For me, the notion of ‘being all things to all people in order to win some’ is a rather dubious way to measure evangelism.
Further, the scale was laced with double barrelled and leading questions. So much so that I have hardly any confidence in its results. I can’t help but wonder why it is that Christians sometimes settle for such a lax view of science. And, yeah, a lot of that pops up with regard to the issue of natural science and the origins debate, but it creeps its way into all areas of academia, too. Such scales are an indicator of the greater movement in Christianity–toward academic laziness. And, amazingly lots of young ’scholars’ go to Christian colleges where, many times, this academic laziness is championed. And, the cycle begins again.
It’s my prayer that the next generation of Christian college professors are a little more critical than the last one, and they are able to bridge the nebulous gap between academia and the Kingdom of God. I suppose I’ll have to place my hope in Steve.
**Note: No, it’s not all Christian College profs that promote this ideal of academic laziness. There’s some really good ones out there, I’m speaking more broadly about a disturbing general trend.
Tags: Spiritual Gifts, Social Science
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2006/03/04/spiritual-gifts/trackback/
Posted in social science, sunday school journal at 1:35 pm by Brandon
A few weeks ago, I took a spiritual gift inventory for the new member class at our church. (Yes, now that Jen and I know for sure that we’ll be in Grand Rapids for at least the next 3 years, we’re doing what Zalm would term “membering up”.) As a social scientist in training, I find myself hyper-sensitive to tests of my personality. Thus, you should probably read this post with a grain of salt.
It should also be noted that I’m not trying to critique the PERSON who lead the class that followed the spiritual gift inventory, or the administration (though, I’d suggest greater selectivity in choosing the next class’ spiritual gift inventory.) Further, I’m not really trying to deal with the issue of spiritual gifts themselves. Rather, I’m just a little miffed as to the way that the test evaluated my spiritual gifts.
Some of my results were quite predictable. For example, I scored a big goose-egg when it came to speaking in, or interpreting tongues. I think much of that has to do with the tradition in which people are raised. I’ve never really been exposed to these gifts, and though I’m reticent to say that they can never be practiced effectively today, I find it a little odd that people who interpret tongues only interpret spiritual messages, like “shak a laka bulu zangiti” being translated as “Glory be to God most high!” It just seems a tad wierd that a tongue speaker would never, you know, ask “Which way to the restroom?”, “Do my socks match my skirt?”, “You can’t see my boxers through my khakis, can you?”, or “I hope no-one can tell that I just farted.” Anyway, that’s just an aside.
What really struck me were the items measuring evangelism. One particular item really got me. It went something like this: “I desire to be all things to all people in order to win them over.” I strongly disagreed. My reasoning was that I really just wanted to be myself. Another evangelism item reflected a desire to spread the gospel. I strongly agreed with that one. Another item was a double barreled question that combined both the desire to spread the gospel, and the individual’s intent to share the gospel verbally to unbelievers by telling them about the love of God or something. Here, I do have a desire to share the gospel, but I have questions about the methods and modes of that communication…thus, I split the difference.
One tool that quantitative social scientists use to understand if a scale is really getting at what they think it’s getting at, is a reliability analysis. Essentially, reliablility is the idea that if scale items are each measuring the same thing and doing it well, they should be highly correlated with one another. Logically, this makes sense. If I asked you three questions about an identical topic, you should give me similar answers each time. If however, I asked you three questions about a topic I believed to be identical and you gave me three very different answers, I would know that I probably didn’t ask questions that were really getting at the topic at hand.
My answers to the evangelism questions are as divergent as possible. I would suspect that others displayed the same unreliablity.
Beyond unreliability, I think there’s a greater issue with this particular scale (and, I’m picking on evangelism here, but I feel that there were a plethora of reliability issues with the scale.) I’m not sure that it’s really on target. I mean, I think that it could reliably measure the spiritual personality of a modern with regard to evangelism, but for a pomo, it falls flat. For me, the notion of ‘being all things to all people in order to win some’ is a rather dubious way to measure evangelism.
Further, the scale was laced with double barrelled and leading questions. So much so that I have hardly any confidence in its results. I can’t help but wonder why it is that Christians sometimes settle for such a lax view of science. And, yeah, a lot of that pops up with regard to the issue of natural science and the origins debate, but it creeps its way into all areas of academia, too. Such scales are an indicator of the greater movement in Christianity–toward academic laziness. And, amazingly lots of young ’scholars’ go to Christian colleges where, many times, this academic laziness is championed. And, the cycle begins again.
It’s my prayer that the next generation of Christian college professors are a little more critical than the last one, and they are able to bridge the nebulous gap between academia and the Kingdom of God. I suppose I’ll have to place my hope in Steve.
**Note: No, it’s not all Christian College profs that promote this ideal of academic laziness. There’s some really good ones out there, I’m speaking more broadly about a disturbing general trend.
Tags: Spiritual Gifts, Social Science
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2006/03/04/spiritual-gifts/trackback/
Joe said,
March 4, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Christians have a history of preferring to lead people(or force them) into agreement with themselves. It’s sad but true. The Church today would rather conform people to a standard or an idea of outward morality rather than meet the needs of their community. At least, that’s how it feels most of the time. I know not all churches are guilty of this. I am currently praying to find a community of believers who are active in their area, serving people, meeting needs, and loving genuinely.
It’s all too apparant that most churches want you to think, act, and look a certain way before you can feel true acceptance. In fact, I find myself guilty of this sometimes as well. What do you think is a real and rational way to achieve the level beyond that?
Honestly, I feel like church is just too big and unmanageable. The temptation to standardize and conform is great because it makes things easier. I have found the most magical and beautiful times in my spiritual life have been in my small group of 5 or 6 people(believers) who really care about each other and all human beings(believers or not) they come in contact with.
A Skeptic said,
March 4, 2006 at 2:38 pm
So why badchristian.com? Was ignorantcommunist.com already taken?
jason said,
March 4, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Your jig about the speaking in tongues, and the interpretations of such made me laugh. You know, the “I hope no-one noticed I just farted part.” Very funny.
Jack Baptist said,
March 4, 2006 at 11:10 pm
I took a spiritual gift test once. I had intentions of filling out the answers but I never got around to it. I didn’t want to waste the little booklet so I gave it back to my pastor and said, “Hey, sorry for taking the spiritual gift test.”
MT Brewer said,
March 5, 2006 at 3:55 pm
I’ve taken far too many variations of the spiritual gifts inventory for my taste. The church I used to serve/work at was really big on doing those tests and even re-taking every so often to follow your own self-deveopment.
While there are some elements of it that can be accurate, I think it’s junk science and doesn’t take so many things into account — like someone being burnt out, a skeptic, let down by the church, etc. And you’re absolutely right about the double-barreled questions, that the way they are often worded sparks up internal conflict — “I would never think *that* way unless ___ “.
I used to rank really high on mercy and grace, but these days I’ve really become a hard skeptic and am a bit too quick to judge and “hold the church accountable” than to dish out mercy. I think that has a lot to being disillusioned by the reality of the church organization and the disheartening condition of the church of the west.
Shannon said,
March 5, 2006 at 4:35 pm
“I desire to be all things to all people in order to win them over.”
As I’m sure you already know, that bit’s from Paul. And in the context he’s talking about, I have to agree with him. It’s the idea that we need to meet people in their environment and culture, where they are right now, rather than forcing them to be like us before ministering to them. However, taken out of context, it doesn’t sound right. It sounds distinctly like fakery, which is the reason you reject it, as far as I could tell. And once again “the taking Scripture out-of-context for our own purposes” strikes again. Thankfully, this time it seems unintentional and not with malice, but it still confuses things more than anything else.
As for spiritual gifts surveys, at Ithaca Vineyard (my college church), I took a class using the Network book. The individual survey bit wasn’t the best ever, but it did have a thing that I thought was pretty cool. It had three other people fill out a survey on you. After all, you’re not necessarily the best judge of what you’re good at - there’s always bias. So in getting a couple of different perspectives, it made the evaluation just a bit more accurate.
And if Christian academia is going downhill, I’ll be terribly disappointed. Thankfully, the people I know who are Christian academics are very sharp and unlazy - but they are very out-of-the-ordinary in other ways too.
Good luck on finding your spiritual gifts despite the questionable social science research methods!
benjamin said,
March 5, 2006 at 8:22 pm
I took one of these and found that I have the gift of commanding demons and performing excorcisms. Hasn’t come in handy yet, but it does give one a certain amount of prestige in the sunday school class.
Nicole said,
March 5, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Eeek Eeeek! Wow, that’s one person who has a lot of psychological problems. (Hey, Paul was no bastion of mental health). And the meaning of that phrase is useless without its context in scripture.
I took a spiritual gifts inventory once. The church didn’t like it because I have the gifts of administration and leadership, according to their little scales. Yeah, women supposedly aren’t supposed to have those gifts.
Let’s give everyone the rorschach! Now that’s a test that reveals the real you that you’re hiding.
Recovering said,
March 6, 2006 at 8:31 am
Joe - I’m totally with you! Loving people and meeting practical needs are the only way we are going to affect change on our culture or reach the growing number of unchurched people in the US (and western culture in general)
Brandon - I am fast coming to the conclusion that spiritual gift inventories suck. How arrogant are we to think that we can distill a subject like spiritual gifts down to a short multiple choice test?
Joe said,
March 6, 2006 at 11:52 am
So true. Jesus isn’t a self-help guide and a paint-by-numbers subject.
Even though I am much more spiritual than I was a year ago, I am still subjected to thoughts of despair and loneliness almost daily. God is ever so patient, even in our sin and doubt. He is truly something beyond whatever watered down crap we can conjure to make Him fit our needs.
Will said,
March 6, 2006 at 2:12 pm
I had a friend tell me the other day that there were 27 different gifts that are ’spiritual’. To be honest, it wasn’t him, but someone else who told him, but we still had a good brow-raise on that one.
27 sounds like they are reaching.
Thank God my church just waits until someone has a flair for something before we put them into leadership.
Ocellated said,
March 6, 2006 at 2:41 pm
You and me both. As a grad student in biology, I’ve spent more than my share of time trying to talk with people on issues of science.
I’m not claiming to have the definitive answer, but I think they’re taking the easy way out. Not having to ever think about things is easier. Blind faith, no doubts, no thinking required.
Recovering said,
March 9, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Will, there is a book out right now (I wish I could remember the name of it or the author) that counts every time a spiritual gift is named in the New Testament and they say there are like 24 that are obviously named as gifts but there are 3 others (including things like worship leading) that are eluded to but are not named as spirtual gifts. That book may be where the number comes from.
However, the book also makes it very clear that the Scriptures don’t say that spiritual gifts are limited to the ones mentioned in the Gospels or Epistles. The lists are never meant to be exhaustive.
I think there are obvious and broad categories but God gives us gifts to do all sorts of creative things for Him. The list could be endless…
Jeremy said,
March 13, 2006 at 1:37 pm
just as an aside i don’t like spiritual gift inventories in general because i think a lot of times they give us an excuse not to live the other parts of the Call that Jesus has given us - i.e. “i’m an evangelist so don’t expect any mercy from me.”
i do want to talk about one thing though and that is the “desire to be myself.” there is a current movement in Christianity that i like to call “reaction Christianity” and i tend to put this blog and many of the ones that link to it in that category. clearly people have become fed up with much of the hypocrisy and loss of vision that calls itself church these days, and i highly empathize with that view. we need to be careful though that we don’t take our reaction to the old church’s failures to be any more truth than those failures were. i’m afraid that we will find ourselves justifying things that are not the good things we are supposed to dwell on simply because they are the opposite of the old order. God’s truth remains what it is, regardless and we need to make sure we seek it and don’t just react.
i am afraid that many times we justify our “new” truth in terms of what we want to be, rather than what God wants us to be. the Call He has given remains one that requires “my life, my flag, and my sacred honor” or more to the point, “myself and what I want to be.” ultimately, our ideas of who we are and what we want to be may have to change to serve His purpose. i think this is the idea paul was trying to get across when he wrote what he did.
this doesn’t mean you can fill “yes” in on a form and be there though - i think in answering the way you did you were simply more honest than most about where you stood. the question remains though, am i willing to give up even who i am to serve Him? that’s a growth thing, and hopefully you and i will get to a point one day where we can truthfully answer that question affirmatively.
Tracey said,
July 11, 2006 at 7:58 am
Thanks for all of the comments! I am just starting to put together notes for my next women’s bible study. My plan was to launch into the spiritual gifts. My hopes are to motivate my women into seeing that we all make the church work- not just the pastor. OF course- being new to this, I was going to start with- you guessed it, a spiritual gifts inventory…. Now, I am not so sure.I see where these tests and analyses could undermine the goal more than help it.
Trevor (a pastor) said,
July 27, 2006 at 10:59 pm
As far as i can tell the spiritual gifts that are ascertainable in the New Testamant are not an exaustive list. And to simply spend a mere twenty minutes or so in one class putting check marks by circles or squares as your mind slowly drifts into neverland is NOT going to pinpoint your spiritual gift.
Spiritual gifts are given by God and only by God. We all are gifted to some degree and these gifts are as far ranging and even beyond what our finite minds can comprehend.
The Bible says that we have, “differing gifts according to the grace given to us… (Romans 12:6)” It then says that we should use them.
One of the gifts we have is prayer. Another is called the infallible word of God. Only by these two, in extremely large doses, will we be able to discern what grace God has given us.
No need to be miffed unless it it with yourself. Get back to basics and don’t get caught up in the (mindless) regurgitating of some. Love them and gently correct them as is taught in the Bible. AND NOW THE FINALE.
“Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things (including gifts) will be added unto you…” (Matthew 6:33)
Steve Rieske said,
April 12, 2007 at 12:09 am
Many people hate these tests because they feel pigeon-holed by them. But there are many who are part of the Church who read in I Corinthians and elsewhere that they are an integral part of the Body, but they have no idea how to contribute. They deeply desire some way to fit in; these tests give a starting point. That’s admirable if it is not dogmatic in its conclusions. One does not have to agree with the test’s conclusions, but they may find out that there is something they do that they just assumed everyone else does, too. That’s a blessed thing.
My personal beef with Spiritual Gifts tests is that they have no way to distinguish between Natural and Spiritual gifts. Hitler was a Naturally gifted leader, but that’s not what the Bible refers to. The Biblical implication is that a believer is gifted when the Holy Spirit is given (at salvation - Ephesians 1) to build the Body.
My Pastor, on the other hand, is an average at best Public Speaker, yet when he preaches, it seems that the Bible comes to life. Not a Natural gift, but a Spiritual one.
Just some thoughts.
Lesley said,
September 22, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Brandon,
Hopefully I can help you understand what speaking is tongues is and why you have never heard translators say things such as “where is the bathroom” and other silly things you mentioned. Speaking in tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit intended as a tool to communicate directly with our Heavenly Father. It’s kind of like an extension through the Holy Spirit when we are praying to God and aren’t sure of what to pray. The Holy Spirit intervenes on our behalf! Cool, huh!