Within ancient Greece,
Hippocrates[1]
speculated that creation was comprised of four elements, namely, earth, air,
fire, and water. He further conjectured that the human constitution mirrors the
earth’s composition such that the human body functions upon the basis of four
“humors:” blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile. Hippocrates attributed
good health to a proper balance of the humors. Conversely, bad health or a bad
state of mind was attributed to a humoral imbalance.
Hippocrates’ theory
would go on to dominate medicine for several millennia until the scientific age
would dismiss it as a fanciful and dangerous myth.[2] However, long prior to being
dispelled, Hippocrates’ theory would be developed into a primitive personality
theory. Galen, a second-century physician, extrapolated humoral theory and
determined that there were four personality types or “temperaments:” sanguine,
choleric, melancholic, and phlegmatic.
The sanguine type was
even-dispositioned, warmhearted, optimistic, and energetic. The choleric was
quick to action, assertive, and prone to hostility and anger. Depression,
sadness, and anxiety characterized the melancholic. The phlegmatic type was
listless and lethargic.[3]
Several twentieth-century
psychologists would build upon temperament theory, having long since jettisoned
its humoral aspects. Today, however, most of the major schools of psychology
prefer other explanations for human personality (e.g., social-cognitive and psychodynamic
theories).
Temperament
Theory Finds a Place in the Church
In 1996, Tim LaHaye published Spirit
Controlled Temperament,
introducing temperament theory to a Christian audience. His book resonated with
evangelicals, eventually selling over one million copies. To summarize,
LaHaye’s presentation asserts several key principles of contemporary temperament
theory: “Temperament is the combination of traits we were born with; character
is our ‘civilized’ temperament; and personality is the ‘face’ we show to
others.”[4] According to LaHaye, it
is impossible for temperaments to change, but the Holy Spirit can “modify” our
temperaments such that they appear to be changed.[5] Further, “We are all a
blend of at least two temperaments: One predominates; the other is secondary.”[6] Lastly, LaHaye introduced
the “LaHaye Temperament Analysis,” such that people may discover their inborn
temperament blend.
LaHaye never attempted
to find biblical justification for the four temperaments except to assert: “In Proverbs 30:11-14 the wise man saw four
kinds of people. About five hundred years later, the four were given names by
Hippocrates.”[7]
What LaHaye didn’t tell his readers was that a contextual reading of Proverbs
30 reveals that the four kinds of people cited by the proverbist refer to four varieties
of wicked people:
There are those who curse their
fathers and do not bless their mothers.
There are those who are clean in their
own eyes but are not washed of their filth.
There are those—how lofty are their
eyes, how high their eyelids lift!
There are those whose teeth are swords,
whose fangs are knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, the needy from
among mankind. (Proverbs 30:11-14, ESV)
The term translated “There
are those” (Heb. dôr) is literally translated “generation,”
and refers not to four temperaments, but of four varieties of people who break God’s
commandments. The first group violates the fifth commandment; “Honor your
father and mother” (Exod. 20:12). The second group is guilty of hypocrisy,
believing that they are “ritually clean” (Heb. ṭāhôr, cf. Deut. 23:12–14), but are
instead covered in their own “excrement.” The third group is guilty of arrogance
and pride, and the fourth group is guilty of using speech to destroy others,
especially the poor (cf. Prov. 25:18).
Despite his attempt,
LaHaye’s iteration of temperament theory has absolutely no biblical (or
scientific) basis—not one shred. The Bible never states that our “temperament”
is determined by our heredity and it never teaches us that our sin is
ultimately a result of weakness brought about by our temperament.[8] The Bible doesn’t even
acknowledge the category of “temperament.” Adams well observed:
[LaHaye’s] categories
came from paganism, not from Scripture…Surely the framework for a system of
counseling ought to arise from biblical exegesis, not from pagan Greek philosophy…[9]
LaHaye’s theory is
little more than a pseudo-scientific form of biological determinism baptized in
Christianese; the resurrection of ancient pagan folk-psychology dressed in
church clothes.
Creation
Therapy
Richard Arno and his
wife Phyllis are credited with designing their own Christian alternative to
secular psychology. This method, entitled “Creation Therapy,” is essentially a therapeutic
adaptation of LaHaye’s temperament theory. It includes a fifth temperament, the
supine, which is alleged to refer to a conscientious and servile person.
Like LaHaye, the Arnos
claim that mankind has an inborn temperament that “determines how he reacts to people, places,
and things.”[10]
This “inborn” and immutable temperament is cited in distinction with the belief
that “people are born as blank slates,” a viewpoint the Arnos claim was originated
by Thomas Aquinas. This is a completely spurious claim since Aquinas’
anthropology was thoroughly in line with Christian orthodoxy. Aquinas wrote, “Christ
alone excepted, all men descended from Adam contract original sin from him.”[11] Aquinas did not believe
humans are born “blank slates,” and
instead, he affirmed a conventional doctrine of original sin.
The Arnos claim Creation
Therapy is “the mechanism by which man is given the ability to find balance
between body, soul, and spirit, allowing him to be the best that God created
him to be.”[12]
The Arnos allege that their system identifies one’s “temperament needs” such that
those needs can be met in order that “all areas of the inner man” may be in “perfect
balance.”[13]
Character defects and sinful predilections are recast by the Arnos as “temperament
weaknesses.” Indeed, the language of sin and grace is nearly absent from Creation
Therapy. Once a
counselee’s “temperament blend” is identified, counsel is issued upon that
basis.
Following the example
of LaHaye, the Arnos developed the “Arno Profile System” (APS)[14] in order to help people
identify their inborn temperament. The APS is essentially a coopted version of
the FIRO-B test produced by psychologist, William Schutz. Schutz introduced a
theory of interpersonal relations entitled
“Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation” or FIRO. He argued
that every person has three interpersonal needs: inclusion, control, and affection.[15] Schutz then developed a
fifty-four question test (i.e., FIRO-B) in order to measure persons according
to their three interpersonal needs. The Arnos adapted the FIRO-B in order to
fit their iteration of temperament theory calling it the “Arno Profile System.”
Having obtained a copy
of the APS, I examined the questions in order to determine if this test was a
legitimate means of gathering data such that meaningful and relevant counsel
could be provided. What I found was a series of surface-level questions that
are largely irrelevant to the problems faced by those seeking godly counsel. The
test consists of fifty-four questions which may be answered with one of six
choices ranging from “never” to “usually.” The questions in this test are
designed to divulge what a counselee thinks about himself as it pertains to his
temperament (e.g., “I let other people control my actions,” and “I like people
to invite me to things”).
The APS is alleged to disclose what
“temperament blend” the counselee has as it relates to Schutz’s three
categories of inclusion, control, and affection. Once one’s temperament analysis
is conducted via the APS, a creation therapist then attempts to issue counsel
upon the basis of the set of preconceived attributes that are associated with
the counselee’s temperament. As one National Christian Counselors Association (NCCA)[16] certified counselor put
it, “Temperament holds the answers to every relationship problem.”[17]
The trouble with this methodology
is obvious: NCCA counselors are not actually counseling people, but are instead
counseling temperaments. Instead of gathering data in order to truly understand
who a counselee is and what he or she is facing, creation therapists merely
find out which temperament boxes their counselee fits in so that canned
responses can be offered to address the counselee’s problems. Such a
methodology has more in common with astrology than biblical Christianity.
At times, it is hard to
distinguish the Arnos counseling methodology from bald manipulation. For
example, when counseling “the Melancholy,” the Arnos insist that the counselor
approach the counselee with “intellectual superiority,” since people who have a
melancholy temperament are “rebels.”[18] They further instruct
their counselors that “It is imperative that you establish your superior intelligence
to this person.”[19]
The Arnos suggest letting melancholy counselees “see your credentials” and that
“If they have a higher educational degree than you do, let them know that you
have 25 years of experience.”[20] Additionally, the Arnos require
that their counselors “never confront a Melancholy counselee with their
mistakes.”[21]
Not only is this approach evidently manipulative, it is utterly unbiblical. Jesus
and his apostles taught that it is right to confront a brother with his sin in
order to establish reconciliation, repentance, and righteousness (Matt.
18:15-20; 1 Tim. 5:20).
From the perspective of
secular psychology, the APS/FIRO-B test fails to live up to the hype. In 2003,
the Buros Center for Testing, the reputable testing organization of the The University of Nebraska, evaluated the FIRO-B. The evaluation revealed
significant deficiencies. The FIRO-B “appears to fall short of the mark due to
flaws in conceptualization and implementation.”[22]
In his text, Case
Studies: Epistlemological
[sic] Validation of the Arno Profile System: Temperament
Studies, Alex
Appiah, a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist, has attempted to mount a
defense of temperament theory and the APS by demonstrating their efficacy via
case studies. What this book demonstrates is precisely the opposite. In one
case, Appiah writes of a woman named “Daniella” who sought counseling because
of depression and anger. After having run her through the APS, Appiah then
reviewed Daniella’s “inborn” temperament traits with her. Appiah then counseled
her to adjust her life to fit these traits. For example, according to the APS, Daniella is “Melancholy-Compulsive in the area
of Control.” Appiah then concluded that Daniella “Has a compulsive need to ‘appear’
competent and in control.” He then counseled her to “learn to submit to
authorities while maintaining control of her own personal life.”[23] Not once did Appiah appeal
to the gospel and its implications to for this woman’s life. Never was the rich
treasury of biblical wisdom applied to her anger and depression. Daniella was
never confronted with her sin and her need for grace. Daniella’s counselor was
focused upon the results of the APS and not the reality of her life.
Is the Arnos’
System Biblical?
Whereas the Arnos have
asserted that their theory is rooted in the Bible and is completely in harmony
with the Christian faith, Creation Therapy, like that of LaHaye’s temperament
theory, is completely absent of biblical support. The only text the Arnos have
attempted to marshal to demonstrate the biblical nature of their theory is,
unsurprisingly, Proverbs 30:11-14. As noted above, this passage says nothing about
temperaments but instead characterizes those who break the commandments of God within
the context of the writer’s life. So too, the Arnos have engaged in proof-texting in
order to demonstrate that the human temperament is comprised of inclusion, control,
and affection. They have cited a handful of texts (e.g., 1 Cor. 2:10; Luke
1:46-47; Eze. 18:31), all of which say nothing about temperament nor inclusion,
control, or affection—psychological categories that are completely foreign to
the biblical text.
To put it plainly,
there is absolutely no biblical justification for any part of temperament
theory or the Arnos’ system. Whereas the Arnos make much of the fact that they reject
modern psychotherapies,[24] their system is rooted in
the backward thinking of an unbelieving worldview (i.e., that of Galen and
those who would build on his theory), and it is thoroughly influenced by secular
psychology. For example, the Arnos have appropriated the introvert/extrovert
paradigm popularized by the occultist and psychologist C. G. Jung.[25] Much the same can be
said regarding the Arnos appropriation of the language of “self-esteem.” By
implication, the Arnos’ counseling methodology implies that the Bible is
insufficient to equip the church for the good work of counseling (2 Tim.
3:16-17). Specifically, creation therapy presupposes that the Bible insufficiently
teaches the doctrine of anthropology and counseling methodology.[26] Instead of the genuinely
godly counsel given by, say, the apostle Paul, the Arnos and the NCCA, give
counsel from a baptized version of an ancient and long-discredited personality
theory.
The Bible does not
teach that each human being has an unchanging and innate temperament. Rather,
the expectation of Scripture is that Christians would change comprehensively
according to the Spirit’s ministry of sanctification. Instead of seeking to
identify our inborn temperament in order to understand ourselves and our needs,
the Bible directs us to live a God-focused life wherein Jesus is our greatest treasure.
The Triune God calls forth, “listen to me” (Isa. 51:1), “turn to me” (Isa.
45:22). The Scripture never directs those who are afflicted to look to themselves
in order to understand or solve their problems.
The ad-hock attributes
associated with the various temperaments are completely baseless and recast
human identity in a two-dimensional framework that is neither realistic or
pragmatic. Whereas the Arnos believe that their theory is the key to giving godly
counsel, they depart from the biblical text in order to derive its content. Like
psychology and psychiatry, temperament theory originates from the unbelieving
world and is fundamentally man-centered.
The Arnos’ have
asserted that sin is essentially brought about as a result of unmet temperament
needs.[27] Subsequently, recognizing
these needs, fulfilling them, and maintaining a balance will result in
individuals refraining from falling “into an area of temperament weakness.”
This paradigm, however, is also completely unbiblical. The command of the New
Testament is not to get our “temperament needs” met, but to deny ourselves and follow
Christ (Matt. 16:24). Man’s sin is brought about most fundamentally by the idolatry
of self and is only corrected by trust in the true God and a denial of self.
Christianity then is an exercise in delayed gratification: Putting to death
our selfish desires (Gal. 5:24), setting our minds “on things above, not on
things that are on earth” (Col. 3:1), and patiently awaiting our glorious reward,
namely, Christ himself.
The way of the cross is
for the present; glory and reward will come only in the future, when Jesus comes
to reign. Discipleship means certain death.[28]
Unlike Creation
Therapy, the Christian faith calls us to conformity to the image of Christ, and
that conformity requires comprehensive change. Our desires,
needs, character, personality, minds—indeed everything that we are must change
and be conformed to Christ. Thus, whereas Creation Therapy aims to teach
counselees to ‘know thyself,’ the Christian faith teaches counselees to set aside
themselves and to know God.
Creation Therapy is
predicated upon a trichotomist anthropology which asserts that mankind is a
“triune being…made up of body, soul, and spirit.”[29] According to the Arnos,
the soul includes the human’s intellect, will, and emotions (cf. Schutz), and
it is “in the soul” that the Arnos have located temperament.[30] Simply put, the Arnos’
trichotomist anthropology is wrong. When God created man, he created him from
two components: breath and dust (Gen. 2:7).
When we examine the manner
in which the terms “soul and “spirit” are used in Scripture, it is clear that these
are synonymous and refer to the same immaterial component. For instance, Mary's
famous song, the Magnificat, states, “My soul magnifies the
Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (Luke 1:46-47). Mary’s statement
is a classic example of synonymous parallelism indicating that the terms “soul”
and “spirit” are interchangeable. John 12:27, records Jesus as saying, “Now my
soul is troubled.” In an entirely similar context, John 13:21 states, “Jesus
was troubled in his spirit.” Jesus uses soul and spirit synonymously when he
says that we are body and soul (Matt. 10:28) and body and spirit (Matt. 26:41).
Both the soul and spirit are characterized within Scripture as the immaterial
component of man (Luke 24:29; 1 Cor. 2:11). While there are many more examples
we could appeal to, suffice it to say that these terms are used synonymously.
So too, the interchangeability of “soul” and “spirit” is confirmed in the
lexicons. Taking these terms as they are found in the New Testament, the term psuchē (i.e., “soul”) is defined as “life
on earth in its animating aspect making bodily functions possible—life,
life-principle, soul.”[31] The term pneuma (i.e., “spirit”) is defined as
“that which animates or gives life to the body.”[32]
Given the above, when
we analyze the two principle texts marshaled in defense of trichotomy (i.e., 1
Thess. 5:23, Heb. 4:12), there exists little reason to interpret these two
verses as teaching an anthropology otherwise unknown in the New Testament. When
Paul wrote, “Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may
your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 5:23), we ought to recognize that he “accumulates terms
to express completeness, a common idiom.”[33]
Hebrews 4:12 states, “For
the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword,
piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and
discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” While virtually all trichotomists
point to this text as evidence for their view, the term translated “division”
(Grk. merismos)
and its New Testament cognates always refer to the dividing up or distribution
of the same thing.[34] For instance, Hebrews
2:14 speaks of “gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed (merismos) according to his will.” Matthew 27:35
states, “And when they had crucified him, they divided (dimerizo) his garments among them by
casting lots.” Here, as in every occurrence of this verb, it is a single object
that is being divided or better, distributed (cf. Luke 11:17-18; John 19:24).
Academic
Chicanery
In researching the
Arnos, I attempted to examine their claims to considerable doctoral-level
education credentials. Richard Arno claims to possess a “D.Psy.” from Faith
Theological Seminary, a Ph.D. from Andrew Jackson University, and a D.D. from
Jacksonville Theological Seminary.[35] Mrs. Arno also claims to
possess a Ph.D. from Andrew Jackson University.
My curiosity was piqued
since “D.Psy” is not a recognized abbreviation for the degree of Doctor of
Psychology. To no avail, I attempted to locate the institution which issued this
degree. I then attempted to verify the Arnos’ Ph.D.s from Andrew Jackson
University (AJU). This institution underwent a name change and is now New
Charter University (NCU). NCU/AJU is a nationally accredited business college,
offering only degrees in business and communications via distance education.
Noticing that the school does not currently offer doctoral degrees, I inquired
of NCU and asked the registrar if the school ever had a doctoral program. I was
told that neither NCU nor AJU has ever had a doctoral degree program. Given
that “Doctor of Divinity” is universally considered to be an honorary degree
within the U.S., I’ve concluded that there is little reason to countenance the
Arnos claims to doctoral-level education.
After developing creation therapy, the Arnos established
the NCCA. This group provides training, credentials, and even degrees for those
who desire to practice creation therapy. One can earn a “Bachelor of Arts in
Christian Counseling” from NCCA by completing a mere fourteen courses![36] In the U.S.,
baccalaureate degrees require approximately one hundred and twenty credit-hours
of study or roughly the equivalent of four years of full-time study. I contacted
a school that is authorized to administer NCCA programs to inquire how long it
would take for someone to earn a Bachelor of Arts from NCCA. I was told that
one could earn this degree in as little as one year in full-time study. Needless
to say, NCCA academic requirements are exceptionally deficient when compared to
conventional standards.
Conclusion
Like
LaHaye, the Arnos have done the church a fantastic disservice in purveying a
completely unbiblical approach to helping hurting people. While the Arnos have
sought to uphold the value of their modality by touting Creation Therapy’s effectiveness,
their counseling method is antithetical to Scripture. Creation Therapy was not
founded upon a thoroughgoing exegesis of the Bible, but the pagan presuppositions
of Galen and those who would build upon his theory. While the Arnos claim that
Creation Therapy is “A Biblically Based Model for Christian Counseling,” its
tenets (e.g., the category of “temperament”) are entirely foreign to the
biblical text.
Functionally,
the Arnos’ system is detrimental to those that receive its counsel since it does
not accord with the Bible’s teaching. As
shown above, NCCA counselors do not counsel people, but temperaments. The Arnos’
system commodifies people and their problems, recasting them in a two-dimensional
temperament framework.
[1] There is some uncertainty as to whether
these theories may be properly attributed to Hippocrates. Jouanna has noted
that the theory of the four humors first occurs in the writings of Polybus, a
student of Hippocrates. See Jacques Jouanna’s “The Legacy of the Hippocratic
Treatise the Nature of Man: The Theory of the Four Humors,” in Philip Van Der
Eijk ed., In Greek Medicine from Hippocrates to Galen: Selected Papers
(Leiden, NL: Brill, 2012), 335-6.
[2] Hunt notes that bloodletting, a popular
means unto balancing the humors, had caused “incalculable” harm. Morton Hunt, The
Story of Psychology (New York: Anchor Books, 2007), 18.
[3] D. G. Benner, P. C. Hill eds., Baker
Encyclopedia of Psychology and Counseling, 2nd Ed. (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999), 1233.
[4] Tim LaHaye, Spirit Controlled
Temperament (Tyndale House Pub., 1994), 16.
[5] Ibid., 19.
[6] Ibid., 51.
[7] Ibid., viii.
[8] I am not suggesting that people are
not born with certain tendencies, both in character and disposition. These
creational differences, however, are not to be confused with immutable temperaments
born of heredity.
[9] Jay E. Adams, The Practical
Encyclopedia of Christian Counseling (Stanley, NC: Timeless Texts, 2003), 175.
[11] Thomas Aquinas, The Summa
Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Vol. 1 (Notre Dame, IN: Christian
Classics, 1948), 501, cf. 415: “The sin in which a man is conceived is original
sin,” and “original sin infects every part of the soul.”
[12] Arno, Creation Therapy, 19.
[13] Ibid., 18.
[14] Prior to the year 2000, the Arnos
called their test the Temperament Analysis Profile or TAP.
[15] J.E. Roeckelein ed., Elsevier's
Dictionary of Psychological Theories (Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier, 2006), 218.
[16] The NCCA is a degree and licensure
granting organization founded by the Arnos. See intra.
[17] Rick Martin, God Created You: A
Guide to Temperament Therapy (Charlotte, MI: Jesus is Lord Ministries,
2004), 5.
[18] Arno, Creation Therapy, 73.
[19] Ibid., 75.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] D. Oswald, 2003, “Test review of FIRO-B(tm),”
in B. S. Plake, J. C. Impara, R. A. Spies eds., The Fifteenth Mental Measurements
Yearbook, http://marketplace.unl.edu/buros/.
[23] Alex Appiah, Case Studies:
Epistlemological [sic] Validation of the Arno Profile System:
Temperament Studies (n.p., 2018), Kindle Edition, loc. 1296.
[24] Arno, Creation Therapy, v.
[25] While it is claimed by certain Jungian
psychologists that Jung was not a “believer” in the occult [e.g., Calvin S.
Hall, Vernon J. Nordby, A Primer on Jungian Psychology (New York: Meridian,
1999), 25.], Jung’s own writings easily betray such a claim. Jung believed in
the full gamut of occultism: clairvoyance, prophecy, animal magnetism, visions,
divination, ghosts, human levitation, etc. See C. G. Jung, Psychology and
the Occult (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1977).
[26] C.f., the comments made by Sewell:
“The Pastor who wants to facilitate healing in the Body of Christ will seek to
have a better understanding of temperament…the Word of God has to be applied in
different ways according to the temperament…” Selvyn Sewell, Pastoring the
Temperament: A Guide for Pastoral Counseling (Bloomington, IN: Xlibris,
2008), 11.
[28] David L. Turner, Baker
Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic, 2008), 412.
[29] Arno, Creation Therapy, 10.
[31] W. F. W Bauer, W. F. Danker, F. W.
Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Ed. (Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago
Press, 2000), 1098.
[32] Ibid., 832.
[33] Robert Letham, Systematic
Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 340.
[34] John Murray, Collected Writings
of John Murray, Vol. 2 (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1982), 30.
[35] National Christian Counselors
Association: Licensing Program for Christian Counselors, 52.
[36] National Christian Counselors
Association: Licensing Program for Christian Counselors, 22-5.