This helps me understand the situation a little bit more. It sounds like in the instance you were taking about, there had indeed been some form of vetting process beforehand, its just that it didn't involve personality profiling. It sounds like you were quite well informed about your friends journey and then made an informed decision or "risk", on that basis. Which is what I was pushing towards. It meant that these issues were already well understood before he (she?) was released, and you were prepared for the pastoral care they might need to receive. Thats good leadership!
I've just realised that here we have a pastor advocating taking risks and an evangelist advocating being careful. Crikey, even when we are advocating each other's natural positions we still can't agree!!!! ;-)
Anyway contrary to what you say here (personality profiles "say this is how this person is and doesn't allow for development or change"), personality profiles almost always present themselves as snapshots (Myers Briggs) or dynamic models (Ennegaram), which mean that they should never be used to box people in - its not how their designres present them. But they can provide really helpful insights into how people react under pressure, and a vocabulary for discussing inter-team dynamics which are invaluable. They can also really affirm people in who they are and help change other folk on the team to be more accepting of personality differences. Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" but I think its slightly more subtle than that...often actually what we need to do is to "love others in such a way that they understand that they are loved" (which is what we want for ourselves). This actually means interacting with them in ways that their personality regards as loving. Robustly challenging a Myers Briggs "T" is often a helpful approach which really hurts a Myers Briggs "F". Man, I have learned so much about myself and how to treat others through personality tests, never feeling that I have been boxed in, and never making (I hope) others feel that they have been boxed in.
Re: your comment about you and Phil being pastors, not church planters...I don't think we should use personality tests to guage people's gifting. These are two different things. You can't use a personality profile to tell if someone is a pastor. And even if you are a pastor, the idea is to assess not whether you are suitable for cross-cultural mission based on the gifts you bring but whether you are healed and whole enough to sustain the pressures of cross-cultural ministry (character/core spirituality). And if there are deeper issues, then that enables folk to make sure appropriate care is in place. I think that some personalities are perhaps more naturally inclined to pastoral care, but just because you are pastors doesn't mean you shouldn't be church planting. It perhaps suggests that you will need to form a team with people who have giftings which will balance yours, though. Maybe we should consider that its ideal (though not always possible) to have evangelists with us if we are pastors (and vice versa) in order to maximise our potential, though. Perhaps if there are only pastors on your team, we can expect your church to reflect that...
This is all again different from issues which come up further down the line which are a result of new experiences and not stuff that is brought into the initial selection process. Of course we can't discourage people for the moment on the basis that they might get unwell!! Its not wrong to experience depression etc as a result of church planting, but if you are depressive before you even start, its a fair bet that c.p. will exacerbate rather than heal the issue...
I agree that there is a question about how you judge whether someone is "healed enough yet" to take on the stresses of church leadership in a cross-cultural setting. That final intuition must be about communal discernment in the Spirit, and you are totally right to bring in that balance. But the response to the uncertainty shouldn't be that we will release anyone into it, because "everyone is hurting to some extent." (I know you weren't saying this). There are too many cases of folk being really damaged by inner hurts which still control them in church leadership, which no-one knew about in advance. Personality tests (among many other assessment tools) are one way to help us come to an informed and careful judgement on these issues. I can think of no cross-cultural mission agency (or even denomination) which doesn't have a vetting process, which implies that some folk can be encouraged to wait for some time before moving into these things.
Finally, I actually do think that in some cases, if we can't find the right people (or if we deem in the Spirit that the risk really is too great), we actually shouldn't move ahead. This goes against my natural drive to just get on with it... One way that God affirms that the time is right is that he brings the right people along to get to the next stage.
This has been a really good chat! Thanks for all your insights and for helping me get back to a more balanced perspective :-)
Aha!
Hi Sarah,
This helps me understand the situation a little bit more. It sounds like in the instance you were taking about, there had indeed been some form of vetting process beforehand, its just that it didn't involve personality profiling. It sounds like you were quite well informed about your friends journey and then made an informed decision or "risk", on that basis. Which is what I was pushing towards. It meant that these issues were already well understood before he (she?) was released, and you were prepared for the pastoral care they might need to receive. Thats good leadership!
I've just realised that here we have a pastor advocating taking risks and an evangelist advocating being careful. Crikey, even when we are advocating each other's natural positions we still can't agree!!!! ;-)
Anyway contrary to what you say here (personality profiles "say this is how this person is and doesn't allow for development or change"), personality profiles almost always present themselves as snapshots (Myers Briggs) or dynamic models (Ennegaram), which mean that they should never be used to box people in - its not how their designres present them. But they can provide really helpful insights into how people react under pressure, and a vocabulary for discussing inter-team dynamics which are invaluable. They can also really affirm people in who they are and help change other folk on the team to be more accepting of personality differences. Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" but I think its slightly more subtle than that...often actually what we need to do is to "love others in such a way that they understand that they are loved" (which is what we want for ourselves). This actually means interacting with them in ways that their personality regards as loving. Robustly challenging a Myers Briggs "T" is often a helpful approach which really hurts a Myers Briggs "F". Man, I have learned so much about myself and how to treat others through personality tests, never feeling that I have been boxed in, and never making (I hope) others feel that they have been boxed in.
Re: your comment about you and Phil being pastors, not church planters...I don't think we should use personality tests to guage people's gifting. These are two different things. You can't use a personality profile to tell if someone is a pastor. And even if you are a pastor, the idea is to assess not whether you are suitable for cross-cultural mission based on the gifts you bring but whether you are healed and whole enough to sustain the pressures of cross-cultural ministry (character/core spirituality). And if there are deeper issues, then that enables folk to make sure appropriate care is in place. I think that some personalities are perhaps more naturally inclined to pastoral care, but just because you are pastors doesn't mean you shouldn't be church planting. It perhaps suggests that you will need to form a team with people who have giftings which will balance yours, though. Maybe we should consider that its ideal (though not always possible) to have evangelists with us if we are pastors (and vice versa) in order to maximise our potential, though. Perhaps if there are only pastors on your team, we can expect your church to reflect that...
This is all again different from issues which come up further down the line which are a result of new experiences and not stuff that is brought into the initial selection process. Of course we can't discourage people for the moment on the basis that they might get unwell!! Its not wrong to experience depression etc as a result of church planting, but if you are depressive before you even start, its a fair bet that c.p. will exacerbate rather than heal the issue...
I agree that there is a question about how you judge whether someone is "healed enough yet" to take on the stresses of church leadership in a cross-cultural setting. That final intuition must be about communal discernment in the Spirit, and you are totally right to bring in that balance. But the response to the uncertainty shouldn't be that we will release anyone into it, because "everyone is hurting to some extent." (I know you weren't saying this). There are too many cases of folk being really damaged by inner hurts which still control them in church leadership, which no-one knew about in advance. Personality tests (among many other assessment tools) are one way to help us come to an informed and careful judgement on these issues. I can think of no cross-cultural mission agency (or even denomination) which doesn't have a vetting process, which implies that some folk can be encouraged to wait for some time before moving into these things.
Finally, I actually do think that in some cases, if we can't find the right people (or if we deem in the Spirit that the risk really is too great), we actually shouldn't move ahead. This goes against my natural drive to just get on with it... One way that God affirms that the time is right is that he brings the right people along to get to the next stage.
This has been a really good chat! Thanks for all your insights and for helping me get back to a more balanced perspective :-)