The latest issue of Femnista is now online — and I have an article in it! The theme is Swashbucklers. My article’s about Robin Hood, and there are others for Blackbeard, The Princess Bride, The Three Musketeers, Zorro, Shipwrecked, The Scarlet Pimpernel, and Jack Sparrow. Do us a favor and check them out 🙂
Author: Marissa
Ficitonal MBTI – Sherlock Holmes (INTP)
In the world of fictional typology, Sherlock Holmes is typically cited either as the perfect example of an INTP or as a notoriously difficult charter to type. Some writers say this difficulty is because the character displays aspects of several different types (including INTJ and ISTP) due to the writers’ ignorance of Myers-Briggs theory.
While this may be partly true, I think we can pin-down a single best-fit type for most portrayals of Sherlock Holmes in film and television (I’m not covering the original stories in this post). Rather than showing several different personality types, the different portrayals of Sherlock Holmes show how much variation there can be within a single personality type.
INTP Traits
The personality type that fits most film and movie portrayals of Sherlock best is INTP. The function stack for this type is this:
- Introverted Thinking (Ti)
- Extroverted Intuition (Ne)
- Introverted Sensing (Si)
- Extroverted Feeling (Fe)
This means that Sherlock first approaches the world with a judging attitude that is focused inward and relies on impersonal analysis. Ti prefers to internalize observations and work with abstract ideas. It “values facts chiefly as illustrative proofs of the idea,” and rejects things that seem irrelevant (Myers, Gifts Differing, p.78). This would explain why BBC’s Sherlock didn’t bother to remember that the earth goes around the sun. Read more
What Is A Minister?
So many people, across every Christian denomination, are becoming fed-up with church. Last week, we talked about how part of the reason people say they leave the church is how badly they were treated by fellow believers. Another reason people give for leaving, or at least rejecting “organized religion,” is how they’ve been treated by the ministry.
I’ve been blessed in that I’ve had both good and bad experiences with people in ministry roles. I know others who have only seen exploitative, authoritarian, or otherwise bad examples of the ministry. To keep hold of our faith, sometimes we have to be able to look past men like this and cling fast to God. We can’t fall into the trap of blaming Him for what people do. In fact, He’s probably upset even more upset than we are. How would you feel if someone started mis-treating your children while saying that they served you?
Seeing so many examples of what the ministry shouldn’t be leads some to think perhaps there shouldn’t be a ministry or human leadership roles in the church at all. There are too many scriptures that talk about the proper role of ministers, though, for me to agree. Rather, it make me ask, “Ideally, what does God want the ministry to do?” and “How can we recognize a true minister?” If we can answer those questions, perhaps we can encourage the people who do have leadership and teaching abilities towards being the kind of ministers God wants so see. Perhaps some of us can even fill those roles.
Puts Christ First
Jesus Christ is the Head over all things to the church (Eph. 1:22) and the Head of each individual (1 Cor. 11:3). A true minister will acknowledge Christ as his Head, and also respect Christ’s role as your Head.
Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are fellow workers for your joy; for by faith you stand. (2 Cor. 1:24)
Good ministers also recognize that any authority they do have comes from Jesus. He is the One who appoints ministry roles in order that His people might grow towards perfection and be edified in unity (Eph. 4:11-16).
And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry (1 Tim. 1:12)
I dare say no one has had an experience quite like Paul’s conversion and calling, but everyone in a ministry role owes their appointment to Jesus Christ. If their allegiance lies anywhere else, then they are not a true minister. As believers we cannot build on any foundation other than Jesus Christ, and as teachers we cannot lay any other foundation and expect to prosper (1 Cor. 3:11-13).
Not A “Hireling”
I’m of two minds regarding the paid ministry. One the one hand, it is clear in scripture that the people who serve God’s people are supposed to be supported by the brethren. On the other hand, it seems that (in the church as well as in the world) the more money involved the more likely people are to become corrupt.
If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more? Nevertheless we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel. (1 Cor. 9:11-14)
Paul did not choose to live off the churches’ money and generosity, but he would have had every right to do so. Similarly, when Jesus sent the 70 out to preach He told them to dwell as guests in one house “eating and drinking such things as they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages” (Luke 10:7). Paul uses the same phrase in 1 Timothy when explaining why elders deserve respect (1 Tim. 5:17-18).
The problems are more likely to arise, I think, when ministers are hired and paid by a corporation rather than supported by their local churches. To be fair, I have seen good and bad ministers in both independent and corporate churches, but I do think the corporate ministry is more likely to attract more of the sort of people who are in it for the prestige, politics, and paycheck.
But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep. (John 10:12-13)
Again, I want to stress that not all paid ministers have this attitude. I do think, however, that a system in which ministers are dependent on a corporate group for money and assignments rather than being connected to a local congregation is more likely to produce “hirelings” who are not invested in truly caring for Christ’s sheep.
Helpers of Your Joy
We already quoted 1 Corinthians 1:24, which describes the ministry’s role as “fellow workers for your joy.” The King James Version renders this “helpers of your joy.” There are times for correcting those who teach other doctrines and rejecting heretics “after the first and second admonition,” as Paul told Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 1:3-8; Tit. 3:10-11). Discipline and rule is not a minister’s main role, though. A minister’s influence in a congregation should bring joy and peace. If someone needs corrected, it should be done with the respect due a family member (1 Tim. 5:1-2).
When Paul gives instructions to Timothy and Titus, he tells them to remind the brethren of our foundation in Christ, to teach and encourage, to exercise godliness, to shun profanity and nonsense, and to live peaceably (1 Tim. 4:6-7; 2 Tim. 2:14-16; Tit. 2:1-15). Basically, they were to do what Paul himself did — teach the brethren and equip them with the tools needed so they could draw closer to God and not “be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3).
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure. (Phil. 2:12-13)
Notice that Paul wanted this church group to be able to work toward salvation without his help or presence, recognizing that it was God who worked in them. This didn’t eliminate the need for Paul’s role, but it meant they weren’t supposed to be dependent on any human minister. Other believers, including the ministry, can help us on the road to salvation, but they are not the One “who works in you” (1 Cor. 3:4-11).
That is the key to what make a true minister — they seek God first, and do everything they can to make sure the people they serve also seek God first and develop a relationship with Him. Really, it just means they are doing the same thing that every believer should be doing. They are showing love and helping their brethren in the best way they can using their specific gifts. There is much more to a minister’s role than this, but this is where everything has to start.
The House of the Seven Gables
The House of the Seven Gables by Nathaniel Hawthorn was the book from my first Classics Club book spin. I was supposed to have it finished by January 5. I started it the last week of December, and didn’t finish until January 13. It wasn’t even that long, and I wasn’t reading anything else to distract me. I just found it terribly dull.
I had such high hopes for this book, since I didn’t dislike The Scarlet Letter, and my favorite English professor had told me this was the Hawthorne he taught in his American literature classes (I now half-suspect this was simply to convince students that British literature is more fun than American).
Top Reasons This Book Was Disappointing:
- The author kept apologizing for his boring characters and plot. Page-space would have been better spent if he’d focused less on apology and more on actually making them interesting.
- Hawthorn’s limited-omniscient narrator spent one. entire. chapter talking to a corpse. We all knew the character was dead, but the narrative voice just kept calling for him to rise up and get on with his schedule. Only one paragraph of this entire chapter was relevant to the plot.
- The ending was happy. Usually I like happy endings, but when I’ve been miserable for the entire book, I expect at least a few characters to be miserable as well.
The House of the Seven Gables is a Gothic romance originally published in 1851, and set around the same time. It was the novel Hawthorne published after The Scarlet Letter, and never quite equaled its predecessor’s popularity. It was still plenty popular, though, and I found someone online comparing its reception in America to the UK’s reaction to Jane Eyre, which was published just 4 years earlier (and is a much better book, in case you were wondering).
I felt like this story wasn’t quite sure what it wanted to be. Sometimes it felt like a moral tale, sometimes like a supernatural story, sometimes like a revenge narrative, sometimes a class satire. But the moral is never really a clear part of the story, the apparently “supernatural” is meticulously explained, revenge just sort of happens by chance, and the class satire is only marginally more effective. Obviously it works for some readers, but not for this one.
Click here to get a copy of The House of the Seven Gables
First Do No Harm
Often cited as part of the Hypocratic Oath, “First do no harm” is a motto of good doctors everywhere (thought is was actually written by an Englishman named Thomas Sydenham). The sentiment is one we in the church would do well to emulate.
Time and again I read or hear things like this: “I still love God, but I’ll never go back to a church again. The people are too cruel/hypocritical/shallow/judgmental.” One or two people saying this could perhaps be explained away, but it’s not just a few disgruntled individuals. It is becoming an epidemic.
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:34-35)
This sort of love is the very definition of doing no harm, since agape always seeks the well-being of its object. So what does it say about the church’s track-record of keeping this commandment when we are driving people away from church?
Love Your Neighbor
To get an increased sense of how serious God is about the need for us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and our brethren the way that Christ loves us, lets look at James 2.
If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well; but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. (James 2:8-10)
We can’t tell ourselves, “Well, it’s okay if I don’t love everyone since its not like I’m murdering them.” This is not to belittle how serious murder is, but as far as you’re concerned not loving someone is just as serious a violation of God’s law (James 2:11-13).
You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. (Matt. 5:21-22)
Someday, we will have to answer to God for every time we were angry with someone for no reason, every time we looked down on them, every time we treated them with disdain — in short, we will answer for every time we did not show God’s love in our interactions with other people. That’s a sobering (perhaps terrifying) thought.
Don’t Hinder Them
Though the phrase “do no harm” is not found in scripture, we do see several verses that express the same sentiment. God instructs us to put the welfare of others first and do all we can to not hurt them.
Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus (Phil. 2:3-5)
Part of Jesus Christ’s mindset was to help, not hurt, those He came into contact with. He put His people’s needs above His own to the point of dying for them. Following His example, we must also focus on helping, not hindering, our brethren.
But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way. (Rom. 14:10-13)
In our dealings with other believers, one of our first priorities should be not giving them reason to stumble in their walk with God. Instead, we should be focused on building each other up.
Importance of Well-Doing
It is not enough to “do no harm,” though that is a good first step. It is also important to actively do good. On His last Passover as a human being, Jesus told His disciples that the Father is glorified when they “bear much fruit,” which is one of the signs that they are indeed followers of Jesus (John 15:8). We can say we’re following Jesus, but if we aren’t bearing some kind of good fruit then we are not glorifying God.
What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. (James 2:14-17)
This isn’t just James giving us an example of the kind of works we are supposed to do (e.g. help destitute brethren). He’s also making a comparison that tells us faith without works is as useless and empty as talk and no action.
You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (James 2:24-26)
Rahab did have faith, but it wasn’t effectual until shown by her works. She could have just sat in her house believing “the Lord your God, He is God in heaven above and on earth beneath,” but she would have died along with everyone else in Jericho if she hadn’t taken action to help God’s people (Josh 2:9-11).
In Luke 10, Jesus was discussing the two greatest commandments with a lawyer who had a questions about the command to “love your neighbor as yourself.” When he asks, “and who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied by telling the story of the Good Samaritan. In this parable, a Jewish man is beaten and robbed and the spiritual leaders of the day declined to help him. It was a Samaritan — someone the Jews had no dealings with (John 4:9) — who saved the Jewish man’s life. At the end of the parable, Jesus asks, “So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?” The lawyer says, “He who showed mercy on him.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:36-37). The answer to the lawyer’s question is that we are obligated to love and help anyone who needs us, even if we don’t like them and especially if they are our brethren.
Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith. (Gal. 6:7-10)
We’re supposed to do good and help others whenever we have the opportunity. That’s part of what love is, and love is essential in the type of church Christ is building. The closer we get to being the church that Christ is aiming for when He says “I will build My church,” the more likely we will be to welcome people toward God rather than push them away.
Falling In Love With Anyone
The study is 20 years old, but I first became aware of it last week. In two days, I saw two different articles talking about falling in love and Dr. Arthur Aron’s “The Experimental Generation of Interpersonal Closeness.” (As an interesting side-note, this Dr. Aron is married to Dr. Elaine Aron, who we’ve talked about in connection to her research on Highly Sensitive Persons [HSPs].)
Aron’s study wasn’t actually intended to explore the science of falling in love — it was designed to study closeness and included both men-women and woman-woman pairs (because the sample group, a psychology class, was 70% women). The couples who fell in love were an unintended side-effect. Mandy Len Catron’s recent article “To Fall in Love With Anyone, Do This,” which called attention back to this study, demonstrates that the principles Aron used for studying accelerated intimacy between strangers can be applied to romantic relationships.
It’s a fascinating idea, made even more fascinating when you read his published research paper (what can I say? I’m a nerd) and find out about some of his other results. Is there a difference in closeness for introverts and extroverts? Can you truly become close to someone in less than an hour? What is it that effectively increases closeness?
Introverts and Extroverts
One thing I found fascinating about this study, which wasn’t brought out in any of the other articles I read, was Dr. Aron’s observations on the role introversion and extroversion played. In Study 3, Dr. Aron had the participants take a Myers-Briggs test, then used those results to create extrovert-extrovert, extrovert-introvert, and introvert-introvert pairs. Some of the pairs were told the experiment’s goal was to get close to the person you were paired with, and the others were told the study was about “dyadic interaction” and their job was simply to work through the questions.
Extroverts reported closeness in all cases, but introverts only reported closeness when they were told that closeness was a goal. Dr. Aron says, “these data shed doubt on the view that introverts are less social because they are less skilled at getting close. Indeed, when getting close is made an explicit task, introverts became as close as extraverts.” When introverts want to get close to someone, we’re just as capable of socializing with them as extroverts.
Is It Real?
The experiment succeeded in producing a feeling of closeness between two people, but is that closeness as real as a relationship that develops over time? Of the 58 people who completed follow-up questionnaires, 57% had a least one more conversation with their study partner, 35% got together to do something, and 37% started sitting together in class. One couple got married 6 months after the study.
So are we producing real closeness? Yes and no. We think that the closeness produced in these studies is experienced as similar in many important ways to felt closeness in naturally occurring relationships that develop over time. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that the procedure produces loyalty, dependence, commitment, or other relationship aspects that might take longer to develop.
In one of Dr. Aron’s tests, he paired individuals with shared interests, and individuals who shouldn’t have gotten along well based on their different responses to a questionnaire. He also conducted tests where pairs were assigned without filling out pre-tests to determine whether or not they were compatible. In all cases, participants reported similar levels of closeness. That indicates we can rapidly feel close with just about anyone, but on the long-term this closeness might not last because other considerations (like whether or not you share important values) will eventually come up.
Small Talk’s Not Enough
One thing Aron’s research found was that small-talk doesn’t do anything to bring people closer together (which I’m sure many of us have suspected for years). Talking about things people had done, what they liked and disliked, or other people they knew did not produce closeness between the two study participants. Here are some examples of the small-talk prompts used in his study:
-
If you could invent a new flavor of ice cream, what would it be?
- Do you like to get up early or stay up late? Is there anything funny that has resulted from this?
- What is the last concert you saw? How many of that band’s albums do you own? Had you seen them before? Where?
In contrast, the types of questions which did draw people closer together focused on how they feel about the way they live their lives, why they think the way they do, and what helps them connect with other people. Here are a few examples, and you can read the full list of closeness-generating questions at the end of his published research paper (which I linked in the intro), or by clicking this link.
- What would constitute a perfect day for you?
- Is there something that you’ve dreamt of doing for a long time? Why haven’t you done it?
- Tell your partner what you like about them: be honest this time, saying things that you might not say to someone you’ve just met.
Maybe there is a reason people devote so much time to small talk, which we introverts find so frustrating because we crave deep conversations. If we were having deep conversations with everyone, though, we’d feel very close to a lot more people. Maybe small talk protects us in a way, though it can also hinder genuine conversation.
Some Thoughts
Now that I’ve read about this research, part of me would really like to try it out and part of me thinks it sounds scary. I always thought that love is a choice, but there’s a part of me that feels like falling in love should just happen, then once you commit to the relationship you choose to keep loving each other. But Dr. Aron’s research indicates that you can choose who you become close to in the first place, and you can reach a level of closeness in less than an hour that approaches closeness you feel for people you’ve known many years. I think I’d be rather picky about who I went through these questions with, but it might be a great way to let yourself be vulnerable and open up possibilities in a relationship.
Like An Anchor 