I read an article in which the author described growing up in an eggshell. She had been told that this white shell was protective and even comforting, but instead it was a barrier, preventing her yolk from being free. It prevented her from knowing how to talk to God, from expressing what she couldn't find within herself, from developing faith and from rejoicing without hesitation. Her empty soul searched for something more but could find nothing within the shell, nor could she look outside the shell. The eggshell she described was the Adventist eggshell. I found her sense of emptiness overwhelming but familiar for I, too, was raised in the Adventist eggshell. But unlike the author in the eggshell, I have broken free from my Adventist eggshell.
I was educated in the eggshell lifestyle from first grade through college. My choice of career inside the eggshell was limited to one of three options--teaching, nursing or medicine. Medical careers appealed to eggshells since healing was acceptable "work" on the Sabbath and so would not dent the eggshell. Music was encouraged as a hobby but not a profession, because Saturday performances would be "breaking the Sabbath." The eggshell determined my vegetarian diet which was loaded with cheese and, of course, eggs. I asked my grandmother about cholesterol. She had no idea, but told me we didnÌt eat meat for health reasons. The eggshell dictated my dress, which was properly unadorned. Visions of being Miss America played no part of this little girl's dreams. Miss America wore earrings, which serve no function, and eggshells didn't wear them. One eggshell teacher said that in heaven our crowns would have clocks in them instead of gems. The eggshell grew. What about movies, drama or makeup? "That's not what good little Adventist girls should do," was the standard eggshell answer. I didn't know the reason why. That was just the way eggshells were. Accept it as the gospel. What is that, by the way?
I played my predetermined role perfectly, from being a church musician to Sabbath School teacher to being on numerous committees just because I didn't know I could say no. No one said no in my family, either. No one said no to my mother's anger and rage because that wouldn't "look good." So I learned to walk on eggshells. An emotional eggshell grew.
One day, though, a small Voice penetrated my eggshell. "There is something more than this." I began reading "non-eggshell" Christian authors, praying that God would protect my shell! After all, when one lives in an eggshell, the slightest tap might crack the shell. Little did I know how hard the shell really was. I wondered what made these Christians so different from the eggshells that I knew. How did they know so much about God when they didn't have "the truth" like I did?
One day I ran into another eggshell friend who joyfully shared about a Bible study that she was attending. I wondered how a Bible study could generate all this joy and excitement. Bible study was only something people did to become eggshells. Eventually, God led me to this Bible study where I began to learn how much I didn't know about God. After 30 years in "the remnant church," after keeping 1560 Sabbaths, I still did not know my True Sabbath Rest--Jesus Christ.
Eventually, the eggshell of my youth cracked up. The eggshell "pillars" crumbled in the light of Scripture. These "pillars" had blinded my vision of Christ, and as the shells fell away, I realized that Christ is the substance, that He is the yolk, and what is on the inside is truly more important than what is hanging on the outside.
I am free now, free in Christ, free to be scrambled and used in whatever service the Lord has for me. Freedom from the eggshell was scary. I realize now how limiting it was, how in many ways it has crippled me. I take comfort in the fact that God's strength is made perfect in my weakness and He will use my wounds to help heal others. I worship now at Trinity where the focus is on the Lord only. Not on ourselves, not on a prophet, not on externals or on disputable matters. The focus is on the Lord and His creating a change of heart from the yolk out. The sermons are pure God's Word, not contaminated with bits of egg white. And His word sticks to my yolk.
I used to pray that God would move me away from the sea of eggshells that I live in. But just as Jesus told the freed demoniac to stay on the island and tell what God had done for him, He has called me to that too. So I stay and coach others as they begin to peck at their eggshells. There are people who aren't happy about cracked eggs like me, but it wasn't for eggshells that Christ died. It was for freedom. "Stand firm then and do not let your yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery."
HOME / OUR STORIES / DAVID MEAD Pass the word to the other slaves. We leave Egypt tonight.
It's not exactly the same as then--they left together, millions of them. No one left with me today. And yet the leaving is the same however you do it. You have to leave. Today I removed my name from fellowship in Egypt--the local church.
Leaving Egypt-Passover--John called it following the lamb withersoever He goeth. Where am I going? I don't' know exactly--He is in charge. I only know I must go. I follow after.
And yet I know that I am not alone. All true Jews must leave Egypt and follow Him. We just don't do it in a geographical group this time. God looks around the world and notices how it works, "Where two or three are gathered together" It might not get much larger than that. Smaller perhaps.
What does it mean--leave my congregation? It's what anyone would do if he were not stuck in the everydayness of his own life-Egypt-standard procedure. It's not for me. I feel as if I were just cast off on a strange island. It's invigorating, my eye casting about, looking around, examining everything. I look for footprints, edible plants, sails in the distance, shelter. Am I alone? One thing becomes clear-- I am alive. One other thing--not to be here is despair. Nothing could draw me back into that. Alone? No matter. It's the quickening. The search has begun.
Tonight will be different from all other nights. Tonight, like all other searchers, we quit Egypt. Not as ritual. Not pretend quit. We are leaving. Not as if for the first time, but for the first time. All things are become new.
The tyranny of time and place is now broken. Truth is not past or future--it is now. The death grip of everydayness, broken. The malaise of Egypt left behind--a malaise in which I existed and of which I was so unaware. I awaken. Stale custom now has no hold on me. Its familiar demand--of no effect. I am free.
Tonight is the watchnight, the night every slave people wait for. It is the full moon, the 14th of Nissan. Tonight we go.
How did I know to leave? What made me awaken, aware of my death? How did I notice the stupor that had me so enchanted? How it happened doesn't matter, just that it did. I see clues here and there along the way. Guide posts they are. I follow them. When I see a sign left for me, my senses respond. I crave their knowledge.
What direction do I have? Why, one of the most powerful commands ever given. What light do I see? Nothing less than the light that lights the whole earth with His glory. How can I miss it-Come out of her My people. When I find one of His, I know him. We have oneness. A oneness that cannot be missed. I am acutely aware of His own. A man who in his heart of hearts does not allow for such a thing, will notice nothing. The malaise has him. But I am like Robinson Crusoe, awake after years of sleep, coming upon a footprint in wet sand. I am not alone--He is here.
I realize now for the first time, I am exiled. Not like exiled, but truly so. Exiled from the land of unknowingness. I come from that land and shall never return. Inhabitants there know that I no longer belong. Oh, they are aware that others like me exist, but there is nothing to be done about it except to warn each other of us. They must protect Egypt, the clueless fog of everydayness that they love. They challenge God: Where is Your sight-You do not see what we do. Where is your power God-You cannot be moved to action against us?
Does God notice? Does He have an answer for them? Yes. God points to His people, two or three here and there--all over the world, at least one hundred and forty four thousand strong --the called out ones who do not fit into any of the local congregations.
By all the laws of history, we should have disappeared centuries, eons ago, with the Canaanites and Jebusites, disappeared with those of whom we are no longer even sure of their names. Well, we are here and Pharaoh, tonight we leave Egypt. Pass it on.
I grew up in a Seventh-day Adventist home. My parents divorced when I was six, and my dad remarried soon after. My dad obtained primary custody when I was in fifth grade; henceforth I lived with him most of the time, with minimal visitation to my mom until I stopped going to her house four years later. I had a rough childhood; my mom was abusive and my living situation was constantly changing.
My dad was a more liberal Adventist than my mom, but I took as truth whatever my dad believed. My mom was a lot more strict about Sabbath keeping and following Ellen White's health laws, but my dad placed much more emphasis on living with integrity and seeking truth. As a child, I learned much of the Old Testament: the great stories, the history, and several of the Psalms. I believed the Sabbath was binding because it was part of the Ten Commandments; it was a gift of rest, and it wasn't to be taken lightly. I knew about the Investigative Judgment and Ellen White, but I associated those with my mom and her relatives and therefore dismissed them. My family--my dad, step-mom, and younger brother--attended church regularly in Loma Linda, and I was baptized into the church at age 11.
"Seventh-day Adventist..." I sometimes repeated and pondered these words to myself ‚ they described who I was. I felt very lucky to have been born into the one true church. I wondered why our church was the only true church, and how so many sincere people in other churches could be lost.
When I was twelve, my parents (my dad and step-mom) began to design and edit Adventist Today. I wrote an article for the May-June, 1996 issue.
What My Parents Have Taught Me About God and the Church
Roy Tinker, age 12
I have learned from my parents that God is infinite and is love. He wanted to create a planet with people made in his image and likeness to fellowship with him. However, they sinned so he couldn't do that yet, it was delayed. He loved them so much that he-a God, actually died for something he had created, so they could live.
He created everything, including the earth, which he created in six days, and on the seventh he rested and called it a day of rest for humans. It was a day to rest from the work done during the week, and a day to learn more about and celebrate the wonderful relationship with God. It was set aside as a day to fellowship with God also.
The church today is divided into several groups, some who claim to serve God, and some who really serve God. It really doesn't matter what they believe in, as far as small details, as long as they love and serve God.
The Bible is God's holy word, and our manuscript or owner's manual for life. My parents have taught me things from the Bible, such as the golden rule and the ten commandments. I learned that if I apply them to my life, my life will be better and I will be happier.
I have learned the importance of taking care of others and that what I do affects millions of people, whether it be for the good or for the bad. If I criticize someone, that criticism is applicable to myself.
I have learned the dangers of evil, and what Satan's tools are for getting people trapped. I have learned to stay away from them.
I learned that I can ask God anytime I want to help me, or I can just talk to him. He will come soon and take us all to heaven to fellowship with him. There we will live forever. God will change the world to what it was before, and God's people will live happily ever after in that wonderful paradise.
It all sounds pretty nice, but notice how little I wrote about Jesus. I barely mentioned salvation, and I didn't include any details about how a person is saved and what it means to be saved. The truth is, I didn't know Jesus, and I didn't become born again and experience complete freedom until I left Adventism while I was in high school. The main flaws in my "belief statement" were: lack of the centrality of Christ and the glory of God, lack of belief in the complete inerrancy of God's word, and lack of understanding of salvation.
I know the Lord was with me from a young age; I am probably aware of that now because I am a Christian. However, as a Seventh-day Adventist, I never invited Jesus to come into my heart and be Lord of my life. No one ever said much about that. Becoming a member of the church was the most important thing! All anyone has to do to become a member is to affirm belief in the 27 Fundamental Doctrines and be formally baptized. I believed that to be saved, I had to be a member of the SDA church, believe in Jesus (I wasn't completely sure what that meant), keep the Ten Commandments (especially the Sabbath), and not eat meat, especially the unclean meats outlined in the Mosaic law. I knew about grace, but it was just another ill-defined doctrine with the others.
Finding the Truth
When I was in seventh grade, my dad's cousin, a former Adventist, sent us a couple of books regarding the false and cultic beliefs and teachings of Seventh-day Adventism. They especially targeted the Sabbath, Ellen White, and the Investigative Judgment. My parents read these books, studied the Bible, and discussed what they were learning almost every time our family was together. My brother and I learned along with them, listening and often adding to the discussion.
About the same time, we also began a weekly home Bible study with our Christian neighbors; my brother and I participated there as well. We studied the entire New Testament-one chapter per week-and gained a new, fresh understanding of the Bible and New Testament theology. This Bible study was important because it helped us break away from Adventist biblical interpretation. As exiting Adventists, we often interpreted Biblical passages according to Ellen White's writings without knowing it. When we would read something and say what we thought it meant, the neighbors would often ask, "Where does the Bible say that?" The home Bible study helped us learn to study the Bible without pre-conceived notions and interpret difficult passages of Scripture with other passages.
Through all this study, we came to some important conclusions that ultimately led us away from Seventh-day Adventism into Christianity. First of all, we learned that the Old Covenant, which includes all Mosaic law (including the ten commandments), is obsolete, because a newer and better covenant has been established. Here Jesus replaces every element of the Old Covenant. As born-again Christians, we don't have to keep the old-covenant Sabbath any longer! Instead, Jesus is our Sabbath-rest, for in him we are saved and secure in that salvation. The Old Testament priesthood is no longer valid, because Jesus is our great high priest, who speaks to the Father in our defense, and "when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law" (Heb. 7:12).
The Old Testament sacrifices are no longer valid, because Jesus has made the ultimate sacrifice for sins through his blood shed on the cross. In him we are saved, sanctified, and brought into the glorious freedom of God's children. As Paul writes, "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ" (Col. 2:16-17). The entire Old Testament, from the Ten Commandments to the Prophets, points forward to and is fulfilled in Jesus.
Second, Ellen White is not only invalid, she's a false prophet. My dad did Internet research and found a lot of information detailing a side of Ellen White that we had never heard about in the SDA church. For example, she herself often ate meat while she condemned meat-eating ‚ she wrote that those who ate meat would not be translated to heaven. Furthermore, out of all her writings (which are seventeen times as long as the Bible), more than eighty percent is confirmed plagiarism. We also learned that she made many failed prophecies, which, according to the Bible, identify her as a false prophet. I had no trouble breaking away from belief in her; the overwhelming evidence against her combined with her blatant contradictions of the Word of God convinced me she was not only a false prophet; she was a tool of the Devil.
As we continued to study and grow, the Bible and the amazing Christian gospel of freedom in Christ became more and more clear to me and my family. We started a home church with the neighbors on Sunday mornings and quit going to the SDA church on Sabbath mornings. I will never forget that one Saturday night when we gathered and knelt together on the carpet. Going around the circle, we each renounced Seventh-day Adventism and asked Jesus to come in where Adventism had been in our hearts. I went to bed that night feeling like a new person: I was no longer Adventist, and I would never go back.
A New School
The summer before my sophomore year in high school, my parents moved me and my brother from the local Adventist academy to a Christian private school. I needed Christian friends ‚ I had never seen what true Christian young people act like. The Adventist academy was not a Christian atmosphere; in fact, drug dealing and premarital sex was quite prevalent-I heard about it all the time. Going to school there was weird for me: the teachers taught non-Christian doctrine, the students weren't Christian, and I felt like I had to act like them to be cool.
I was compromised and caught in a cognitive dissonance - stuck between my desire to fit in with my schoolmates and my desire to live for what I knew was true. Even though my classmates saw something different in the way I acted and spoke, and many respected me for it, the pressure was always on to compromise my integrity, much more than it would have been at a public school. Adventist adolescents not only rebel against their parents, but they also often rebel against the Adventist mandate to "live according to the Ten Commandments." My friends did not have the Holy Spirit living in them.
My behavior distressed my parents: my home life was terrible, my grades were suffering, and I was caught between what I knew was true and what I felt comfortable with, meanwhile trying to escape from the real world through computer programming. Even though I knew I was acting and living contrary to what I knew was right, and that Adventism was evil, I wanted to stay at the Adventist academy because it was comfortable and familiar.
Towards the end of my Freshman year, my parents began searching for a suitable school for my brother and me, and found a Christian inter-denominational school in a nearby town. When we went to visit the school, my brother and I were adamant that "We shall not be moved," but when we first walked into the school building, all our resolutions dissolved. For me, it was very surprising to find other sincere Christian teens, something I had never experienced at the Adventist academy. I consented to attend the Christian school the following year. A year later, I wrote:
I will never forget coming to [school name] for the first day of school. Like an explorer coming to a new continent, I felt quite bewildered and rather excited by the whole situation. Just migrating from class to class was a new experience; people I had never seen before stopped me in the hallways and greeted me, sometimes asking me how my day was going.
I remember the sort of heavenly, dreamlike feeling I had while walking down the main mall. Bright sunlight streaming softly through the lofty windows seemed to tenderly brighten the soul of every other traveler lucky enough to pass there. God's presence was undeniable, unshakable, and I saw Jesus' love in the smiling eyes of my fellow light-bearers. Never before had I belonged to people I didn't even know.
My first day at [school name] was like a loving kiss from my Father, who once again had pointed me along the joyous path of his perfect will. Since then I have grown to love him more, and I excitedly look forward to wherever God guides me as I grow into the person he wants me to be.
I am convinced God led me to that school for the experience of everyday life with Christians. It was vastly different from my experience at the Adventist academy; the Holy Spirit was present and active, and it showed in the way people treated each other. The whole place felt like it was full of light compared to the dark place I had come from. The teaching in every class was Christ-centered; the lectures were presented under the Christian worldview. School was a joy, and I began to develop real friendships with my peers.
A New Church
During my first year at my new school (my sophomore year in high school), a friend invited me to come to a Sunday night praise service with the high school ministry at his church (Trinity Church). It was amazing! I remembered my old youth Sabbath-school, where nobody really cared about worship or prayer; it was all a performance. The people up front tried to keep us entertained and tried not to "bore us with spiritual stuff." Girls and guys often came to "see and be seen," and many of the girls wore immodest clothing. But here at the Christian church, all the high school students were serious about worshiping God! My parents sat in the back row to watch the service, and they were also amazed.
Our first Sunday morning church service at Trinity was beyond expression. The worship was genuine and full of life and meaning. People in the congregation were singing and raising their hands, something that we had never seen or experienced before in Adventism. And the sermon contained solid Biblical teaching about God's grace and the cross, which had been paramount in our new understanding of Christianity and leaving Adventism. To top it off, at the end of the service we sang the song "I will never be the same again," during which my entire family was crying with joy.
Jesus saved me!
Soon after my family began attending Trinity, I became a Christian. I don't remember where or when, but at some point during that year, I asked Jesus to come into my heart and be Lord of my life. I trusted him alone to save me from my sin, and I knew in my heart that I was secure in my salvation. There was nothing more I could do: Jesus had paid it all! I was saved and filled with the Holy Spirit, and my life began changing dramatically.
As I write, I am amazed at how God has worked in my life. Since I became a Christian four years ago, he has been faithful to change me, one step at a time, to be like Christ-and he will be faithful in the future. He has given me a new life, a new ministry, and a passion to love and serve him. I have grown in my knowledge of the Bible, in my love for God, and my love for others. I can't claim to have made any difference by my own effort-God has done all the work that has happened in me and through me!
I praise God for leading me and my family out of Adventism into the truth, and I praise him for revealing his inerrant, unchanging truth in the Bible. I praise him for my parents, who taught me to love and seek the truth, and seek Jesus above all. Most of all, I praise God for choosing me, saving me, making me his child and loving me, giving my life a purpose, and giving me a real and living hope of abundant life forever with him.
Jesus saved me, not because of any works I did or any laws I kept, but because of his great mercy and love. I will never be the same again!
I was baptised in the lake at Forest Home during the annual church picnic during the summer of 2007.
You are the woman that I've always dreamed of I knew it from the start I saw your face and that's the last I've seen of my heart
It's not so much the things you say to me It's not the things you do It's how I feel each time you're close to me That keeps me close to you, woh oh
You are the woman that I've always dreamed of I knew it from the start I saw your face and that's the last I've seen of my heart
It's not so much your pretty face I see It's not the clothes you wear It's more that special way you look at me That always keeps me there, woh oh woh
You are the woman that I've always dreamed of I knew it from the start I saw your face and that's the last I've seen of my heart
It's hard to tell you all the love I'm feeling That's just not my style You've got a way to send my senses reeling Every time you smile, woh oh
You are the woman that I've always dreamed of I knew it from the start I saw your face and that's the last I've seen of my heart I saw your face and that's the last I've seen of my heart
Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.
In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.
A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.
In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter!
Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don't matter!
In a radio debate several months ago with a Marxist professor from the University of Minnesota, I pointed out the obvious failures of socialism around the world in Cuba, Eastern Europe, and China. At the time of our debate, Haitian refugees were risking their lives trying to get to Florida in homemade boats. Why was it, I asked him, that people were fleeing Haiti and traveling almost 500 miles by ocean to get to the "evil capitalist empire" when they were only 50 miles from the "workers' paradise" of Cuba?
The Marxist admitted that many "socialist" countries around the world were failing. However, according to him, the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing "pure" socialism. The perfect version of socialism would work; it is just the imperfect socialism that doesn't work. Marxists like to compare a theoretically perfect version of socialism with practical, imperfect capitalism which allows them to claim that socialism is superior to capitalism.
If perfection really were an available option, the choice of economic and political systems would be irrelevant. In a world with perfect beings and infinite abundance, any economic or political system--socialism, capitalism, fascism, or communism--would work perfectly.
However, the choice of economic and political institutions is crucial in an imperfect universe with imperfect beings and limited resources. In a world of scarcity it is essential for an economic system to be based on a clear incentive structure to promote economic efficiency. The real choice we face is between imperfect capitalism and imperfect socialism. Given that choice, the evidence of history overwhelmingly favors capitalism as the greatest wealth-producing economic system available.
The strength of capitalism can be attributed to an incentive structure based upon the three Ps: (1) prices determined by market forces, (2) a profit-and-loss system of accounting and (3) private property rights. The failure of socialism can be traced to its neglect of these three incentive-enhancing components.
Prices
The price system in a market economy guides economic activity so flawlessly that most people don't appreciate its importance. Market prices transmit information about relative scarcity and then efficiently coordinate economic activity. The economic content of prices provides incentives that promote economic efficiency.
For example, when the OPEC cartel restricted the supply of oil in the 1970s, oil prices rose dramatically. The higher prices for oil and gasoline transmitted valuable information to both buyers and sellers. Consumers received a strong, clear message about the scarcity of oil by the higher prices at the pump and were forced to change their behavior dramatically. People reacted to the scarcity by driving less, carpooling more, taking public transportation, and buying smaller cars. Producers reacted to the higher price by increasing their efforts at exploration for more oil. In addition, higher oil prices gave producers an incentive to explore and develop alternative fuel and energy sources.
The information transmitted by higher oil prices provided the appropriate incentive structure to both buyers and sellers. Buyers increased their effort to conserve a now more precious resource and sellers increased their effort to find more of this now scarcer resource.
The only alternative to a market price is a controlled or fixed price which always transmits misleading information about relative scarcity. Inappropriate behavior results from a controlled price because false information has been transmitted by an artificial, non-market price.
Look at what happened during the 1970s when U.S. gas prices were controlled. Long lines developed at service stations all over the country because the price for gasoline was kept artificially low by government fiat. The full impact of scarcity was not accurately conveyed. As Milton Friedman pointed out at the time, we could have eliminated the lines at the pump in one day by allowing the price to rise to clear the market.
From our experience with price controls on gasoline and the long lines at the pump and general inconvenience, we get an insight into what happens under socialism where every price in the economy is controlled. The collapse of socialism is due in part to the chaos and inefficiency that result from artificial prices. The information content of a controlled price is always distorted. This in turn distorts the incentives mechanism of prices under socialism. Administered prices are always either too high or too low, which then creates constant shortages and surpluses. Market prices are the only way to transmit information that will create the incentives to ensure economic efficiency.
Profits and Losses
Socialism also collapsed because of its failure to operate under a competitive, profit-and-loss system of accounting. A profit system is an effective monitoring mechanism which continually evaluates the economic performance of every business enterprise. The firms that are the most efficient and most successful at serving the public interest are rewarded with profits. Firms that operate inefficiently and fail to serve the public interest are penalized with losses.
By rewarding success and penalizing failure, the profit system provides a strong disciplinary mechanism which continually redirects resources away from weak, failing, and inefficient firms toward those firms which are the most efficient and successful at serving the public. A competitive profit system ensures a constant reoptimization of resources and moves the economy toward greater levels of efficiency. Unsuccessful firms cannot escape the strong discipline of the marketplace under a profit/loss system. Competition forces companies to serve the public interest or suffer the consequences.
Under central planning, there is no profit-and-loss system of accounting to accurately measure the success or failure of various programs. Without profits, there is no way to discipline firms that fail to serve the public interest and no way to reward firms that do. There is no efficient way to determine which programs should be expanded and which ones should be contracted or terminated.
Without competition, centrally planned economies do not have an effective incentive structure to coordinate economic activity. Without incentives the results are a spiraling cycle of poverty and misery. Instead of continually reallocating resources towards greater efficiency, socialism falls into a vortex of inefficiency and failure.
Private Property Rights
A third fatal defect of socialism is its blatant disregard for the role of private property rights in creating incentives that foster economic growth and development. The failure of socialism around the world is a "tragedy of commons" on a global scale.
The "tragedy of the commons" refers to the British experience of the sixteenth century when certain grazing lands were communally owned by villages and were made available for public use. The land was quickly overgrazed and eventually became worthless as villagers exploited the communally owned resource.
When assets are publicly owned, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship. While private property creates incentives for conservation and the responsible use of property, public property encourages irresponsibility and waste. If everyone owns an asset, people act as if no one owns it. And when no one owns it, no one really takes care of it. Public ownership encourages neglect and mismanagement.
Since socialism, by definition, is a system marked by the "common ownership of the means of production," the failure of socialism is a "tragedy of the commons" on a national scale. Much of the economic stagnation of socialism can be traced to the failure to establish and promote private property rights.
As Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto remarked, you can travel in rural communities around the world and you will hear dogs barking, because even dogs understand property rights. It is only statist governments that have failed to understand property rights. Socialist countries are just now starting to recognize the importance of private property as they privatize assets and property in Eastern Europe.
Incentives Matter
Without the incentives of market prices, profit-and-loss accounting, and well-defined property rights, socialist economies stagnate and wither. The economic atrophy that occurs under socialism is a direct consequence of its neglect of economic incentives.
No bounty of natural resources can ever compensate a country for its lack of an efficient system of incentives. Russia, for example, is one of the world's wealthiest countries in terms of natural resources; it has some of the world's largest reserves of oil, natural gas, diamonds, and gold. Its valuable farm land, lakes, rivers, and streams stretch across a land area that encompasses 11 time zones. Yet Russia remains poor. Natural resources are helpful, but the ultimate resources of any country are the unlimited resources of its people--human resources.
By their failure to foster, promote, and nurture the potential of their people through incentive-enhancing institutions, centrally planned economies deprive the human spirit of full development. Socialism fails because it kills and destroys the human spirit--just ask the people leaving Cuba in homemade rafts and boats.
As the former centrally planned economies move toward free markets, capitalism, and democracy, they look to the United States for guidance and support during the transition. With an unparalleled 250-year tradition of open markets and limited government, the United States is uniquely qualified to be the guiding light in the worldwide transition to freedom and liberty.
We have an obligation to continue to provide a framework of free markets and democracy for the global transition to freedom. Our responsibility to the rest of the world is to continue to fight the seductiveness of statism around the world and here at home. The seductive nature of statism continues to tempt and lure us into the Barmecidal illusion that the government can create wealth.
The temptress of socialism is constantly luring us with the offer: "give up a little of your freedom and I will give you a little more security." As the experience of this century has demonstrated, the bargain is tempting but never pays off. We end up losing both our freedom and our security.
Programs like socialized medicine, welfare, social security, and minimum wage laws will continue to entice us because on the surface they appear to be expedient and beneficial. Those programs, like all socialist programs, will fail in the long run regardless of initial appearances. These programs are part of the Big Lie of socialism because they ignore the important role of incentives.
Socialism will remain a constant temptation. We must be vigilant in our fight against socialism not only around the globe but also here in the United States.
The failure of socialism inspired a worldwide renaissance of freedom and liberty. For the first time in the history of the world, the day is coming very soon when a majority of the people in the world will live in free societies or societies rapidly moving towards freedom.
Capitalism will play a major role in the global revival of liberty and prosperity because it nurtures the human spirit, inspires human creativity, and promotes the spirit of enterprise. By providing a powerful system of incentives that promote thrift, hard work, and efficiency, capitalism creates wealth.
The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works.
Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for sin and the ideal High Priest who could truly gain forgiveness for us. Therefore the old system of animal sacrifices and high priests was done away with after his death (Heb. 10:5-14). "The priesthood being changed (from the Levites to Christ), there is made of necessity a change also of the law" (Heb. 7:12). Therefore, "there is verily a disannulling of the former regulation (i.e. the law of Moses) because it was weak and useless. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope (through Christ) did" (Heb. 7:18,19 A.V. with N.I.V.). This means that it is irrelevant to argue that any command system of God cannot be changed and is eternal - for clearly there was a change made.
The problem of trying to keep the Law
To trust in Sabbath keeping for justification means that we do not accept the fullness of Christ’s victory. Such beliefs mean that we do not accept Christ’s sacrifice as completely successful, and that we feel that works are necessary to bring about our justification, rather than faith in Christ alone. "No man is justified by the law in the sight of God...for, The just(ified) shall live by faith" (Gal. 3:11 cf. Hab. 2:4). Our own effort to be obedient to the letter of God’s laws, however determined, will fail and will not bring us justification; surely every reader of these words knows this already.
If we observe the Law of Moses, we must attempt to keep all of it. Disobedience to just one part of it means that those who are under it are condemned. "As many as are of (i.e. rely on) the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them" (Gal. 3:10).
The victory of Jesus
The weakness of our human condition means that we find it impossible fully to keep the Law of Moses, but due to Christ’s complete obedience to it, we are freed from any obligation to keep it. Our salvation is due to God’s gift through Christ, rather than our personal works of obedience. "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3). Thus "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us" (Gal. 3:13). Because of this, we are no longer required to keep any of the ordinances of the Law of Moses. The New Covenant in Christ replaced the Old Covenant of Moses’ law (Heb. 8:13). By his death, Christ blotted out "the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us (by our inability to fully keep the law), and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross...Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink (offerings), or in respect of a religious festival, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the reality is Christ" (Col. 2:14-17 A.V. with N.I.V.). This is quite clear - because of Christ’s death on the cross, the law was taken "out of the way" so that we should resist any pressure put on us to keep parts of it, e.g. the feasts and the Sabbath. Like the rest of the law, the purpose of these things was to point forward to Christ. After his death, their typical significance was fulfilled, and there was therefore no further need to observe them. If we are going to keep the Sabbath, then why not keep the other Jewish festivals? For Paul lumps them all together. He made no difference between the 10 commandments and the rest of the Torah.
Warnings against keeping any part of the Law of Moses in order to gain salvation are dotted throughout the New Testament. Some taught that Christians should be circumcised according to the Mosaic Law, "and keep the law". James flatly condemned this idea on behalf of the true believers: "we gave no such commandment" (Acts 15:24). Peter described those who taught the need for obedience to the law as putting "a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear. But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ (as opposed to their works of obedience to the law) we shall be saved" (Acts 15:10,11). Paul is equally outspoken: "A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ...that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified...no man is justified by the law...by (Christ) all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses" (Gal. 2:16; 3:11; Acts 13:39).
The New Torah
"All the titles given by the Jews to the Torah: bread, water of life, light of the world, shepherd, the way, the truth and the life, all these John applies to Christ. The opening of John's gospel is taken from a pre-Christian Jewish hymn of praise to the Torah, in the Jewish hymn it is the Torah that is "in the beginning", "the Word", "with God", "the world was made", "light", "life", "the true light that enlightens every man", "grace and truth", "in the bosom of the Father", but John applies all these to Christ. All that Judaism had claimed for the law, John applies to Jesus Christ, he, rather than the Torah, is the final revelation of God's will" (J. Mann). The 5 books of Moses are seen to be matched in the 5 segments of Matthew’s Gospel, and the way the Lord Jesus in imitation of Moses declared His Law from a mountain.
The Sabbath and Israel
The Sabbath was the last day of the week, when God rested after the six days of creation (Ex. 20:10,11). As Sunday is the first day of the week, it would be incorrect to observe this day as the Sabbath. The Sabbath was specifically "a sign between me (God) and them (Israel), that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them" (Ez. 20:12). As such, it has never been intended to be binding on Gentiles (non-Jews). "The Lord hath given you [not all mankind] the Sabbath (Ex. 16:29); "thou [God] madest known unto them [Israel] thy holy Sabbath" (Neh. 9:14).
The Sabbath Is Part Of The Old Covenant
Jesus once commented on a theological problem: a baby boy had to be circumcised on the eighth day of his life. If this day fell on a Sabbath, then work would have to be done. So which law should be kept, circumcision, or the Sabbath? Jesus replied that circumcision had to be honoured, because this came from Abraham, whereas the Sabbath law was later, from Moses: "Moses gave you circumcision [not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers - i.e. Abraham]…". If the law of circumcision took precedence over that of the Sabbath, how can it be argued by some that the Sabbath law is binding but that of circumcision isn’t? And how can it be argued that a Sabbath law was in force from Eden onwards? Circumcision was the token of the covenant with Abraham, whereas the Sabbath was the token of the law of Moses (Ex. 31:17), and Jesus judged that the covenant with Abraham was more important. Paul uses the same kind of argument, when he reasons that the new covenant given to Abraham [which included no command about the Sabbath] is something which cannot be added to or disannulled. He asks, therefore, why it was that "the law…was added" (Gal. 3:15,19)? He replies that the law was added, by implication temporarily, seeing that the new covenant cannot really be added to, in order to teach men about sin and lead them to an understanding of Christ, the promised seed of Abraham. Now that Christ has come, we are not under the law.
The Sabbath is irrelevant to salvation
Therefore through Christ’s death on the cross, the Law of Moses was done away, so that there is now no necessity to observe the Sabbath or, indeed, any festival, e.g. the day of Christ’s death (Col. 2:14-17). The early Christians who returned to keeping parts of the Mosaic law, e.g. the Sabbath, are described by Paul as returning "to the weak and miserable principles (N.I.V.), whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage. Ye observe days (e.g. the Sabbath), and months, and times, and years (i.e. the Jewish festivals). I am afraid of (for) you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain" (Gal. 4:9-11). This is the seriousness of attempting to keep the Sabbath as a means to salvation. It is clear that observing the Sabbath is irrelevant to salvation: "One man esteemeth one day above another (i.e. in spiritual significance): another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that observeth (A.V. mg.) the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that observeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it" (Rom. 14:5,6).
The Example Of The Early Church
Because of this, it is understandable that we do not read of the early believers keeping the Sabbath. Indeed, it is recorded that they met on "the first day of the week", i.e. Sunday: "Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread..." (Acts 20). That this was a widespread practice is indicated by Paul advising the believers at Corinth to take up a collection "upon the first day of the week" (1 Cor. 16:2), i.e. at their regular meetings on that day.
There is ample historical evidence that the early church didn’t keep Saturday. If some say ‘We keep the Sabbath but it’s now Sunday’ then they admit God’s law was changed- therefore their arguments about the unchangeable nature of God’s commands are nullified.
Ignatius (110 AD):"no longer observing the Sabbath but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day"; "If then they who walked in ancient customs came to a new hope, no longer living for the Sabbath... how then shall we be able to live without Jesus…"
Justin Martyr (100-165): "Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly"
Epistle of Barnabas (120-150): "we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, a day also in which Jesus rose from the dead"
Irenaeus (17: "the mystery of the Lord's resurrection may not be celebrated on any day other than the Lord's day"
Bardasian (b. 154): "the first day of the week we assemble ourselves together"
The Didache (70 AD): "on the Lord's own day gather yourselves together and break bread"
Pliny (112) wrote to Trajan that the Christians met together Sunday morning for worship.
And therefore "Unquestionably the first law, either ecclesiastical or civil, by which the sabbatical observance of that day is known to have been ordained, is the edict of Constantine 321 AD." (Chambers Encyclopaedia art. "Sabbath"). Both history and Scripture show that the practice of the early believers was to meet together on Sundays- not Saturday. Either the early church was disobedient, or one has to conclude that Saturday observance was changed to Sunday. And there is no evidence for this. No Difference Between Torah And The Decalogue
It is often argued that keeping of the Sabbath was one of the Ten Commandments given to Moses, and that, whilst the rest of the Law of Moses was done away, the obligation remains to keep all of the Ten Commandments. Some make a distinction between a ‘moral law’ of the Ten Commandments, "the law of God", and a so-called ‘ceremonial law’, the "law of Moses", which they believe was done away by Christ. This distinction is not taught in Scripture. The Bible uses the terms "law of Moses" and "law of God" interchangeably (Num. 31:21; Josh. 23:6; 2 Chron. 31:3). The Old Covenant refers to the Law of Moses, which was replaced on the cross by the New Covenant. - God "declared unto you (Israel) his covenant, which he commanded you (Israel) to perform, even Ten Commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone" (Deut. 4:13). Again it should be noted that this covenant, based upon the Ten Commandments, was made between God and Israel, not Gentiles of the present day.
Moses ascended Mount Horeb to receive the stone tables upon which God had written the Ten Commandments. Moses later commented concerning this, "The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb" (Deut. 5:2), i.e. through those Ten Commandments.
At this time, God "wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments" (Ex. 34:2. This same covenant included details of the so-called ‘ceremonial law’ (Ex. 34:27). If we argue that keeping the covenant made in the ten commandments is necessary, we must also observe every detail of the entire law, seeing that this is all part of the same covenant. It is evidently impossible to do this.
"There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb…the ark, wherein is the covenant of the Lord" (1 Kings 8:9,21). Those tables, on which were the Ten Commandments, were the covenant.
Heb. 9:4 speaks of "the tables of the covenant". The Ten Commandments were written on the tables of stone, which comprised "the (old) covenant".
Paul refers to this covenant as "written and engraven in stones", i.e. on the tables of stone. He calls it "the ministration of death...the ministration of condemnation...that which is done away" (2 Cor. 3-11). The covenant associated with the Ten Commandments can certainly not give any hope of salvation.
Leviticus 19 gives a good example of how varied the laws are: "Do not steal [one of the 10 commandments). Do not lie. Do not deceive one another... Do not hold back the wages ...Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two different kinds of seed" (Lev 19:11,13,19,27) -there is no implication that there are different categories of law.
Christ blotted out "the handwriting of ordinances that was against us" (Col. 2:14) on the cross. This alludes to God’s handwriting of the Ten Commandments on the tables of stone. Likewise Paul speaks of "the law...being dead...the oldness of the letter" (Rom. 7:6), probably referring to the letters of the Ten Commandments which were written on the tables of stone.
Just one of the Ten Commandments is styled "the law" in Rom. 7:8: "The law...said, Thou shalt not covet". The preceding verses in Rom. 7:1-7 stress how "the law" has been done away by Christ’s death; "the law" therefore includes the Ten Commandments.
All this makes it clear that the Old Covenant and "the law" included the Ten Commandments. As the New Covenant has done the Old Covenant away, the Ten Commandments have therefore been removed. The Lord Jesus invites those who follow Him to accept the "rest" which He gives (Mt. 11:2. He uses a Greek word which is used in the Septuagint for the Sabbath rest. Jesus was offering a life of Sabbath, of rest from trust in our own works (cf. Heb. 4:3,10). We shouldn’t, therefore, keep a Sabbath one day per week, but rather live our whole lives in the spirit of the Sabbath.
The Ten Commandments are referred to in Revelation 19:10 when the term "testimony" is used. In the Law the "Testimony" was another term for the Ten Commandments: "then put in the ark the Testimony" (Ex 25:16, 21; 30:6), "when the Lord finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the Testimony, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God" (Ex 31:1. So we can see that the "Testimony of Moses" was the Ten Commandments. Now what does Revelation say the "Testimony of Jesus" is? "The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Rev 19:10). The "testimony" of the old covenant is replaced by those New Testament prophets who spoke under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
Various Objections
- All the believers are described as being priests (1 Pet. 2:9) - who were exempt from keeping the Sabbath (Mt. 12:5).
- Paul lists many sins in the New Testament, both those practised by the "world" as well as those practised in the churches: (Rom 1:28-32, 2 Cor 12:20-21, Gal 5:19-21, Eph 4:25-29, 5:3-18, 2 Tim 3:1-9, 2 Pet 2,3:3-7) but nowhere mentions Sabbath-breakers.
- If we are to keep the Sabbath, we must do so properly; we have earlier shown that it is fatal to keep the Mosaic Law partially, because this will result in our condemnation (Gal. 3:10; James 2:10). Israel were not allowed to do any work on the Sabbath: "Whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death". They were also commanded: "Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the Sabbath day", and therefore they were forbidden to prepare food on that day (Ex. 35:2,3; 16:23). A man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath, presumably in order to kindle a fire, was punished with death for doing so (Num. 15:32-36). Those denominations which teach that Sabbath-keeping is binding upon their members should therefore punish those members with death when they break the Sabbath like this.
Early in our ministry we were critical of personality testing and particularly alarmed at its use in Christian circles. At that time the personality testing movement was just a trickle in the church. Over the years this trickle has turned into a flood. To name a few areas, these tests are now used in Christian schools, Bible colleges, seminaries, and churches for selecting pastors and evaluating church staff compatibility.
In the PsychNotes of our January-February newsletter, we quoted from a description of a book by award-winning author Annie Paul, which is devoted to the subject of personality tests. The title of her book is The Cult of Personality: How Personality Tests Are Leading Us to Miseducate Our Children, Mismanage Our Companies, and Misunderstand Ourselves. The jacket cover of Annie Paul’s book summarizes well what she reveals in her book.
And she exposes the flawed theories and faulty methods that render their results unreliable and invalid. Personality tests, she contends, produce descriptions of people that are nothing like human beings as they actually are: complicated, contradictory, changeable across time and place.1
We have covered some of the same ground in our books and articles. If we were writing a book titled The Cult of Personality, our subtitle would be How Personality Tests Are Leading Christians to Miseducate their Children, Mismanage Christian Organizations, and Misunderstand Themselves.
In spite of our warnings and those of others, Christians have rushed pell-mell into personality testing. We agree with the statement on Annie Paul’s book cover that personality testing is a cult "that celebrates the superficial over the substantive, the static over the dynamic, the standard and average over the distinctive and unique." As we have suggested, the Apostle Paul was no doubt a substantive, dynamic, distinctive, and unique individual who, by the worldly and fleshly standards of the personality-testing cult, would have been rejected for missionary service.2
Just as the church emulates the world in using and promoting psychological counseling theories and therapies, it emulates the world in the area of personality testing. Especially popular among Christians are spiritual gift inventories and tests. These are often used by church leaders who are trying to inspire Christians to serve and by those Christians who desire to serve the Lord. These various spiritual gifts tests (combinations of interest and personality inventories) purport to reveal a Christian’s particular spiritual gifts. We have already written critically about spiritual gifts inventories and the biblical and scientific reasons for not using them.3 Here we wish to examine the use of other types of personality tests.
There are probably thousands of personality tests available. According to its publisher, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBT is "the world’s most popular personality assessment." It has been translated into numerous languages and there are chapters of the Association for Psychological Types all over the world. We know from surveys we have conducted that the MBTI is one of the most popular personality tests used in the church. The MBTI, or variations of it, is used by Bible colleges, seminaries, denominations, churches, and mission agencies, as well as by other Christian organizations and individual Christians.
Annie Paul says in her Introduction:
Perhaps no other personality test has achieved the cult status of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, an instrument created in the 1940s by a Pennsylvania housewife. Fiercely proud of the test she called "my baby," Isabel Myers believed that it could bring about world peace—or at least make everyone a little nicer. The Myers-Briggs, which assigns each test taker a personality type represented by four letters, is now given to 2.5 million people each year, and is used by 89 of the companies in the Fortune 100. Employed by businesses to "identify strengths" and "facilitate teamwork," the Myers-Briggs has also been embraced by a multitude of individuals who experience a revelation (what devotees call the "aha reaction") upon learning about psychological type. Their enthusiasm persists despite research showing that as many as three-quarters of test takers achieve a different personality type when tested again, and that the sixteen distinctive types described by the Myers-Briggs have no scientific basis whatsoever.4
In addition to Isabel Myers, who developed the test, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is named after her mother, Katherine Briggs. The original idea of the types was a brainchild of the occult psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung. Katherine Briggs read Jung’s Psychological Types and introduced her daughter Isabel to Jung’s typology.
After discussing Jung’s involvement in magic, alchemy, spirit guides, and other forms of occultism in our book Four Temperaments, Astrology & Personality Testing, we concluded the following:
At minimum, Jung’s theory, upon which the MBTI is based, is merely vain philosophies of men against which we are warned in Scripture. At worst, it originated from Satan through a spirit guide. We would think that no Christian would want Jung’s psychological theory or any test that derives from it.5
Nevertheless, numerous Christians and Christian organizations are using the MBTI. Thus we will now look at the scientific reasons for rejecting the MBTI.
The MBTI provides the following four bipolar scales:
Introversion—Extroversion
Sensing—Intuition
Thinking—Feeling
Judging—Perceiving
These four scales yield 16 possible types.
The National Research Council has evaluated the MBTI. The Council members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. In appraising the MBTI, the National Research Council says:
It is probably fair to say that the MBTI is the most popular "self-insight, insight into others" instrument in use today. Unfortunately, however, the popularity of the instrument is not coincident with supportive research results.6
In other words, research results do not support the popularity! The Council also criticizes the marketing of the MBTI:
From the perspective of the instrument’s developers, the profits from an audience eager for self-improvement encourages them to market the instrument aggressively; aggressive marketing—complete with type coffee mugs, t-shirts, pins, license plates—has apparently increased the number of consumers worldwide.7
The Council report covers two of the most important areas in which to evaluate the MBTI or any other personality test. The two areas are "Reliability" and "Validity."
Reliability
One text describes reliability as follows: "Reliability refers to the consistency of scores obtained by the same persons when reexamined with the same test on different occasions." 8
The council reports on a variety of studies that found that between 24 and 61 percent of MBTI test takers "showed stability of type." In other words, they received the same MBTI type when reexamined at intervals ranging from five weeks to six years. However, that means that 39 to 76 percent were assigned a different type. The stability of type median was 40 percent, leaving 60 percent instability of type at the median. As a result, the Council report states: "Changes in type designations of these magnitudes suggest caution in classifying people in these ways and then making decisions that would influence their careers or personal lives." 9
Validity
The validity of a test indicates its integrity, whether it actually measures what it is supposed to measure and how well it does so. One author of The Myth of Measurability says, "Validity is the soul of a test." He also says, "It is here that most discussions of testing run aground and most informed proponents of tests fall silent." 10
After discussing many studies on the validity of the MBTI, the Council report states:
The evidence summarized in this section raises questions about the validity of the MBTI. However, many users of the instrument have claimed that its value lies not in its diagnostic accuracy, which is problematic, but in its probative guidance. Respondents often emphasize the increased sensitivity gained from the discussions generated by MBTI feedback. It would seem that such gains could contribute to enhanced performance. Unfortunately, neither the gains in sensitivity nor the impact of those gains on performance have been documented by research. Nor has the instrument been validated in a long-term study of successful and unsuccessful careers. Lacking such evidence, it is a curiosity why the instrument is used so widely, particularly in large organizations.11
Others have expressed concern about the difficulty of establishing validity for tests that are based on theoretical constructs. Drs. L. J. Cronbach and P. E. Meehl say:
Unless substantially the same nomological net is accepted by the several users of the construct public validation is impossible. A consumer of the test who rejects the author’s theory cannot accept the author’s validations.12
In applying this idea to the MBTI, Dr. Jerry Wiggins says:
The validity of the MBTI can be evaluated independently of the total corpus of Jung’s writings but it cannot be fairly appraised outside the more delimited context of Jung’s theory of psychological types. As with any construct-oriented test, both the validity of the test and the validity of the theory are at issue.13
Please note that the validity of the test and the validity of the theory are inextricably bound.
Prior to their overall "Conclusions" section, the Council says that "the popularity of this instrument in the absence of proven scientific worth is troublesome." In their "Conclusions" section, the Council says very clearly: "At this time, there is not sufficient, well-designed research to justify the use of the MBTI in career counseling programs."14
In her Epilogue, Annie Paul says:
"An X-ray of personality." Since the early days of personality tests, this has been the testers’ favorite metaphor, and no wonder: it calls to mind a precise and powerful instrument, capable of penetrating mere surfaces to produce an image of what’s within. And yet this metaphor has never been more than an alluring fantasy, or perhaps a willful delusion. The reality is that personality tests cannot begin to capture the complex human beings we are. They cannot specify how we will act in particular roles or situations. They cannot predict how we will change over time.... Personality tests do their dirty work, asking intrusive questions and assigning limiting labels....
But perhaps the most insidious effect of personality testing is its influence on the way we understand others—children, coworkers, fellow citizens—-and even ourselves.15
The "Barnum Effect," Etc.
Why are people running after personality tests and inventories? And, why do Christians swallow the invalid and unreliable spiritual gifts tests? Research reveals that individuals are very prone to accept the most general character descriptions as being specifically applicable to themselves. The term given to this phenomenon is the Barnum Effect, named after P. T. Barnum, who believed that a good circus had "a little something for everybody." Even though the descriptions or descriptive terms in the inventories, typologies, and tests apply equally well to other people, individuals are gullible enough to believe they are unique to themselves. Of course, this is exactly what happens with the horoscope, palm reading, and crystal ball gazing. This is known in research literature as the illusion of uniqueness and occurs at least for positive traits.
Besides the Barnum Effect there are other reasons why people believe in personality tests and types. When influential Christians and institutions promote these tests and when enthusiasm has been engendered, people tend to trust them. There is also a tendency to support a system in which one has invested time and money, even if the money is only the cost of a book. Unfortunately, the test user who becomes committed is the main source of others being enticed. The enthusiastic user becomes the enthusiastic promoter, often merely parroting the enthusiasm of the original promoter. It may be that the real Barnum Effect is Barnum’s comment, "There’s a sucker born every minute."
Other reasons why people believe in personality tests and types include the "illusion of efficacy," "illusory correlation, "self-deception," "self-fulfilling prophecy," "illusory thinking," "numerolotry," and "gnosis." The appeal of gnosticism is in itself deceptive, because the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9). As people look into themselves and as they use psychological devices for self understanding, they will consider themselves wise but they become fools as they fall for the deception.
The Bible has the truth about mankind. Personality tests, at their best, are a combination of information and misinformation, truth and fiction, cobbled together. We have recommended for years that Christians refrain from using personality tests and, if possible, refuse to take them. Understanding the self comes from the Bible, not from the imaginative and even educated guesses of humans, who are by nature self-deceived.
Christians should not administer or take the MBTI or its variations. For both biblical and scientific reasons, the MBTI and its variations should not be used to evaluate individuals for Christian service or for personal understanding. Contrary to the Bible, contrary to its apparent occult roots, and contrary to the scientific research, Christians and Christian organizations continue to use the MBTI and its variations. This cannot be pleasing to God!
There is a funny thing about how we associate things. We have pretty much all done this. Whenever we have storms in our life we tend to go back to what we were doing when things were calm. Peaceful. In many cases its the need to get back inside the fellowship doors because we, for some reason think we are out of God's favor and that is why things are not peachy.
I think the most difficult thing to embrace sometimes is the Holy Spirit resides in us. God resides. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit was being given to the believer to?
Comfort us and teach us all things. So he is our comforter and our teacher. Yet we embrace sometimes programs at the fellowships or a mans words. Where is the intimacy when we have the comforter and teacher residing in us?
). That this was a widespread practice is indicated by Paul advising the believers at Corinth to take up a collection "upon the first day of the week" (1 Cor. 16:2), i.e. at their regular meetings on that day. 
: "the mystery of the Lord's resurrection may not be celebrated on any day other than the Lord's day"
is "the world’s most popular personality assessment." It has been translated into numerous languages and there are chapters of the Association for Psychological Types all over the world. We know from surveys we have conducted that the MBTI is one of the most popular personality tests used in the church. The MBTI, or variations of it, is used by Bible colleges, seminaries, denominations, churches, and mission agencies, as well as by other Christian organizations and individual Christians.
