What do you think?
Rate this book
Personality Type and Religious Leadership
Combining pastoral and behavioral science expertise, the authors spell out ways type and temperament theory illuminate the clergy role. Learn how to use the 16 Myers-Briggs personality types to recognize and affirm your gifts, work with your liabilities, and understand and accept those with whom you minister. "Being a parish pastor is a very complex role. Our mission in this book is to make that task a little less complex and a little more fun by looking at our congregations through the lens of the MBTI." -- The authors
Paperback
First published January 1, 1988
15 people are currently reading
81 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
July 23, 2012
Having taken the test Oswald and Kroeger set out in the second chapter I found that my result set the tone for the rest of the book both positively and negatively. This was my first observation. As an ESTJ type (Extraversion, Sensing, Thinking, Judging) it helped me gain clarity on the subjects of pastoral care, leadership, prayer and spirituality. I found this positive in further identifying my own strengths and weaknesses. Negatively, I found the book too presumptuous on two counts. Firstly, it was published twenty years ago. Had it been a recent publication there could well have been progressive illustrations with the Myers-Briggs Temperament Inventory.
Secondly, the goal of Oswald and Kroeger's work was to see a radical self-acceptance in understanding the meaning of my four letters. During the 80's there was a huge move forward in church leadership recourse that was new and exciting. However, today it is commonplace; therefore, it is not as radical in self-acceptance. Admittedly, the book does state in most of the nine chapters that the method Oswald and Kroeger use is not exclusive, but one of many ways to self-accept. I would like to discuss with the class what method(s) should be used in today's culture to find self-acceptance as a leader. I would add that a postmodern thinker would have multi-sensory methods that change with group thinking.
Another observation would be the application of my result as an ESTJ in my relationships at home as husband and father. The tolerance / acceptance of colleagues in church leadership are much different than at home. How my colleagues and congregation process who I am can have a different result than my wife and children who `know' me in spite of any mechanical result. Colleagues and congregations are far more prone to leave you or join you than a wife and children. I would like to further expand this role of a private and public figure in class and its application in self-acceptance. I am reminded of seasons in church leadership where I was far more accepted publically than at home with my own family. There have also been seasons when quite the opposite is true. At some point a more profound method is needed for self-acceptance, explicitly the relationship of a leader and God found in a broken and contrite heart. Oswald and Kroeger broach the difficult subject of sexual sin being prone to certain types of leader. Although they elaborate on this, I would like to see a solution by going deeper than identifying the type of leader that could morally fall to sin. King David obviously fits the category of a leader who could sexually sin - and he did! But the solution for David must still be the solution for leaders today - repentance!
This reminds me of a colleague who morally fell to sin and I could not see it coming. With this method of gaining understanding over your own temperament and others, I would hope that my own perception would not be so blind to what is happening around me. In the four areas covered in the book, pastoral care, leadership, prayer and spirituality I would want to give more attention to pastoral care of other leaders around me.
The surprise to me was found in the seventh chapter on the subject of temperament and prayer. Although the book is dated, I would safely conclude that this is a most relevant point Oswald and Kroeger make. By drawing the parallel of Augustine, Ignatius of Loyola, Thomas Aquinas, Francis of Assisi in how they prayed in their own context and culture, I found surprising relief in understanding why my own temperament in prayer. I tend to pray like Ignatius remembering what God has done in the past, and like Thomas in a progression of cause and effect. I can see with further clarity that praying through the Scriptures while at the same time receiving revelation from the Holy Spirit is acceptable. The `aha' that brings clarity to me and captures this line of thinking (and also seems ambiguous) "Those who are underdeveloped in the thinking function may consider the approach to God quite unprayerlike." P92-93
I would like to discuss with the class what temperament they have in prayer, and how they have developed this. Was it through a mentor who gave them clarity to accept their own temperament? Was it through observation of other leaders and role Models? Or was it through reading the biographies of men and women of God who have strived to accomplish something?
This reminds me of a significant time in my own life moving from England to America. The way I prayed was different than my own wife. We were much different than the way our parents prayed. In each case, the temperament of prayer was largely dictated to by who each person was. Some were emotional, others were excited, and we were ambitious.
A final observation would be the assumption that any result of taking the test is the `natural' ministry ability a man or woman in leadership, pastoral care, spirituality and prayer. I have found that the work of the Holy Spirit can change a person. This is clearly seen in the lives of James and John (the Sons of Thunder) who became the Beloved who Jesus `loved' and wise counsel in Jerusalem. If these two young men had taken the test at the lunch of their discipleship and commencement of their apostleship, the result would show them to be bipolar or changed by the work of the Holy Spirit in them. Oswald and Kroeger allude to this but don't conclude strong enough. They certainly make it clear that there is no perfect or pure temperament, but it does change as God works in a leader.
Programs, process, context and identity are covered in the final chapter but three of these are objective and only one is subjective - identity. My general observation from an Anglo-American perspective is that the latter needs to receive more attention than the former. For instance, a leader can perform very well in a program, process and their context of leadership, but unless they are secure in their identity, the ministry becomes a career graded by performance. The book skates around this issue. This is something I would enjoy discussing in class in a positive and productive manner.
Overall, a good read that leaves a number of open ended conclusions!
Secondly, the goal of Oswald and Kroeger's work was to see a radical self-acceptance in understanding the meaning of my four letters. During the 80's there was a huge move forward in church leadership recourse that was new and exciting. However, today it is commonplace; therefore, it is not as radical in self-acceptance. Admittedly, the book does state in most of the nine chapters that the method Oswald and Kroeger use is not exclusive, but one of many ways to self-accept. I would like to discuss with the class what method(s) should be used in today's culture to find self-acceptance as a leader. I would add that a postmodern thinker would have multi-sensory methods that change with group thinking.
Another observation would be the application of my result as an ESTJ in my relationships at home as husband and father. The tolerance / acceptance of colleagues in church leadership are much different than at home. How my colleagues and congregation process who I am can have a different result than my wife and children who `know' me in spite of any mechanical result. Colleagues and congregations are far more prone to leave you or join you than a wife and children. I would like to further expand this role of a private and public figure in class and its application in self-acceptance. I am reminded of seasons in church leadership where I was far more accepted publically than at home with my own family. There have also been seasons when quite the opposite is true. At some point a more profound method is needed for self-acceptance, explicitly the relationship of a leader and God found in a broken and contrite heart. Oswald and Kroeger broach the difficult subject of sexual sin being prone to certain types of leader. Although they elaborate on this, I would like to see a solution by going deeper than identifying the type of leader that could morally fall to sin. King David obviously fits the category of a leader who could sexually sin - and he did! But the solution for David must still be the solution for leaders today - repentance!
This reminds me of a colleague who morally fell to sin and I could not see it coming. With this method of gaining understanding over your own temperament and others, I would hope that my own perception would not be so blind to what is happening around me. In the four areas covered in the book, pastoral care, leadership, prayer and spirituality I would want to give more attention to pastoral care of other leaders around me.
The surprise to me was found in the seventh chapter on the subject of temperament and prayer. Although the book is dated, I would safely conclude that this is a most relevant point Oswald and Kroeger make. By drawing the parallel of Augustine, Ignatius of Loyola, Thomas Aquinas, Francis of Assisi in how they prayed in their own context and culture, I found surprising relief in understanding why my own temperament in prayer. I tend to pray like Ignatius remembering what God has done in the past, and like Thomas in a progression of cause and effect. I can see with further clarity that praying through the Scriptures while at the same time receiving revelation from the Holy Spirit is acceptable. The `aha' that brings clarity to me and captures this line of thinking (and also seems ambiguous) "Those who are underdeveloped in the thinking function may consider the approach to God quite unprayerlike." P92-93
I would like to discuss with the class what temperament they have in prayer, and how they have developed this. Was it through a mentor who gave them clarity to accept their own temperament? Was it through observation of other leaders and role Models? Or was it through reading the biographies of men and women of God who have strived to accomplish something?
This reminds me of a significant time in my own life moving from England to America. The way I prayed was different than my own wife. We were much different than the way our parents prayed. In each case, the temperament of prayer was largely dictated to by who each person was. Some were emotional, others were excited, and we were ambitious.
A final observation would be the assumption that any result of taking the test is the `natural' ministry ability a man or woman in leadership, pastoral care, spirituality and prayer. I have found that the work of the Holy Spirit can change a person. This is clearly seen in the lives of James and John (the Sons of Thunder) who became the Beloved who Jesus `loved' and wise counsel in Jerusalem. If these two young men had taken the test at the lunch of their discipleship and commencement of their apostleship, the result would show them to be bipolar or changed by the work of the Holy Spirit in them. Oswald and Kroeger allude to this but don't conclude strong enough. They certainly make it clear that there is no perfect or pure temperament, but it does change as God works in a leader.
Programs, process, context and identity are covered in the final chapter but three of these are objective and only one is subjective - identity. My general observation from an Anglo-American perspective is that the latter needs to receive more attention than the former. For instance, a leader can perform very well in a program, process and their context of leadership, but unless they are secure in their identity, the ministry becomes a career graded by performance. The book skates around this issue. This is something I would enjoy discussing in class in a positive and productive manner.
Overall, a good read that leaves a number of open ended conclusions!
March 15, 2017
Scholarly research presented in a warm, humorous, conversational tone for practical application. Helpful for Christians in leadership and support positions. Written by an ENFJ and an INFP.
Read
May 24, 2011My response to personality typing stuff continues to be: But why do you need an elaborate Typing system to tell you these things? Haven't you ever done any introspection?
The authors posit that knowing people's Type (and they do ask that you actually have people take an MBTI test themselves, as guessing about others you're often wrong) can help you better minister to people, work with people, etc. I still feel like, "But aren't we better off just having conversations about our preferred styles?"
Admittedly, this is in part because [even after having read two Otto Kroeger books] I still have great difficulty remembering what any of the MBTI letters are/mean (except I vs. E) and so it's not a useful shorthand for me.
I do think a lot of their stuff about strengths and weakness of different Types -- and potentials for Conflict in cross-Type interactions -- is useful.
Though I'm hesitant to fully endorse their discourses on Types.
I'm an ISTJ, but a lot of the NT stuff in here resonated for me (much moreso than a lot of the SJ stuff). For example.
I also really winced at the idea that the bottom line is parish growth. They do at one point say something like, "Like it or not," but I still feel like, "Okay fine, it's important for people to know what a system is like before they enter into a system, but why no space for ways in which certain Types might be good at helping to change the system?"
The authors posit that knowing people's Type (and they do ask that you actually have people take an MBTI test themselves, as guessing about others you're often wrong) can help you better minister to people, work with people, etc. I still feel like, "But aren't we better off just having conversations about our preferred styles?"
Admittedly, this is in part because [even after having read two Otto Kroeger books] I still have great difficulty remembering what any of the MBTI letters are/mean (except I vs. E) and so it's not a useful shorthand for me.
I do think a lot of their stuff about strengths and weakness of different Types -- and potentials for Conflict in cross-Type interactions -- is useful.
Though I'm hesitant to fully endorse their discourses on Types.
I'm an ISTJ, but a lot of the NT stuff in here resonated for me (much moreso than a lot of the SJ stuff). For example.
I also really winced at the idea that the bottom line is parish growth. They do at one point say something like, "Like it or not," but I still feel like, "Okay fine, it's important for people to know what a system is like before they enter into a system, but why no space for ways in which certain Types might be good at helping to change the system?"
December 26, 2008
i was pumped about taking the MBTI for the first time, but once my excitement about my new self-knowledge wore off, so did my interest in this book.
April 15, 2011
A good, detailed description of Myers-Briggs personality types and what that means for church leadership.
May 15, 2012
right up my alley. is of great help.
August 5, 2012
Excellent explanation of how the Meyers-Briggs Temperament Assessment can be used in the area of church leadership. I benefited greatly from it.
July 19, 2016
Excellent insights for clergy but just a little dated (1988). Wish I'd read it when at seminary though. Would recommend to any clergy experiencing conflict.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews