quantifying the divine romance
Following worldly practices will never lead to a faithful representation of the Gospel of Christ and the heart of the Father. In that regard, attempts to quantify the spiritual disciplines and the quality of the Christian life follow a secular “wisdom” of the worst kind.
Understandably, the intention of such messages is to arouse and inflame within the congregation fervent devotion to intentional Biblical practices. We are, in fact, called to be pursuing perfection as our heavenly Father is perfect knowing that the way of the Lord begins with a narrow gate. The intention and desire, admirably, is to encourage intentional devotional; this is praiseworthy! The Christian life must be characterized as one of ferocious devotion and such sermons need to be emphasized within the Church. My rebuke is not in the encouragement toward the consistent application of the spiritual disciplines or to living a life of devotion. The means by which such messages are presented is the matter of concern; and, it is through this means that we reach a result contrary to Scripture.
The format and structure of assessments measuring the Christian life is based, regardless of intention, on a psychological model of statistical analysis developed in the mid-twentieth century by the secular psychiatric community. To this day it is the standard for the medical and psychiatric fields for the purpose of gathering a significant amount of data quickly and determining statistical likelihood for varying diagnoses. For instance, the GAD-7 creates a probability for the diagnosis of Generalized Anxiety Disorder by calculating scores on seven questions; each question is related to the diagnostic criteria with patients identifying whether each applies to them “not at all,” “several days,” “more than half the days,” or “nearly every day” with each response having a corresponding value (0, 1, 2, or 3). Similarly, the influence for the GAD-7 is the widely implemented PHQ-9 (Physical Health Questionnaire); the PHQ-9 directly cites diagnostic criteria for Major Depressive Disorder using the same scoring method: “not at all,” “several days,” “more than half the days,” or “nearly every day” with each response having a corresponding value (0, 1, 2, or 3). The GAD-7 and PHQ-9 are not the only screenings with this format; in fact, almost all psychological screening tools are created in this manner—it is a norm of the industry. And, it is important to note that all psychological screenings and assessments are designed as a tool for diagnosis and risk analysis. Assessments aimed at Christian spiritual disciplines, regardless of intention or prior knowledge, are a direct descendent of this psychological practice; they plagiarized the scoring structure and reductionistic secular methods of psychological screening tools that are almost entirely worthless even within the psychological industry.
The danger within the psychological fields for secular practitioners is found in the objectification of the phenomenological. Simply stated, each person is different, but the screening tools are oblivious of and disregard entirely the uniqueness of human experience; within their worldview, we are not fearfully and wonderfully made by a loving Creator. Each question within the questionnaires are equally weighted to produce broad statistical analysis in order to improve testing validity for wide population demographics. Quantifiable data is more important than the miracle of the individual. The field of psychology has entirely embraced a collectivist worldview and silenced the warnings of many (secular and religious) over the last 150-years; this sterile approach approves of the reduction of the human experience—reduction of the individual. Quantifiable data and statistical probabilities reign supreme. And there is little if any consideration for the weight and validity for the questions asked. Should all the questions be equally weighted? Take for example a case study following the assessments of two patients both reporting to struggle with depressive symptoms. If ‘Patient A’ scores highly on the PHQ-9 (justifying a statistical likelihood for a severe depressive disorder) while also reporting on significant matters left unasked by the screening tool (a strong understanding of personal meaning and an unshakable faith in Christ), how should they be diagnosed? This worldview disregards meaning and faith and determines the patient to be a significant risk potentially justifying involuntarily commitment. If ‘Patient B’ scores extremely low on the PHQ-9 with the only criteria answered affirmatively (a score of 3, “nearly every day”) is in regard to suicidality, then the patient is statistically justified as being within a range category labeled “None” (no depressive symptoms). In this quick case study for ‘Patient A’ and ‘Patient B’, are we to trust the validity of the results provided? It ought to lead to a basic question that is sadly left out of clinical psychological trainings: which question is most important? More importantly, can any collection of quantifiable data be considered valid in light of the reality of our phenomenological nature.
The result is detrimental to the treatment and care of the very patient they claim to serve. One of many of those warnings came from the church scholar Soren Kierkegaard: “If you label me, you negate me.” The consequence of this hubris (the claimed right to label), as one can imagine, in the modern therapeutic industry, is the elimination of genuine relationship, the divorce of relationship and healing, and misdiagnosis. Within sessions, practically speaking, true conversation dies and results become identity. Unfortunately, this worldview always produces the same results: diagnosis becomes identity.
The modern church has, unfortunately, also failed to heed to warnings against this worldview. In fact, the modern church appears obsessed with following secular examples, practices, and philosophies in a wide variety of arenas: business practices, business/church development, population/congregation analysis, and personal/spiritual development. Not only are we called to be set apart and be a holy nation, we are also taught a true Wisdom that stands in direct contrast to the world. We should not be embracing—regardless of intentionality—secular practices, teachings, or philosophies. This includes the desire to simplify matters by quantifying relational dynamics—assigning measurements in our relationship with each other as well as with Jesus.
If the psychiatric industry suffers unseen consequences from their worldly practices, then we, as the followers of Christ, suffer all the more greatly. The intention of the practice, again, is well understood; congregates are provided with a tool to increase practical introspection. However, we must ask ourselves, intentions set aside, what results are actually achieved.
On one side of the spectrum, if a congregant scores highly, the encouragement is directed toward the Pharisaic, toward the idolatry of spiritual disciplines: “I must be doing well in my walk with God.” The phrase is a natural reaction, but it should include a tremendous pause for needed humility. Do you walk rightly with God because of your efforts and disciplines? Does your practice of the spiritual disciplines make you a “good Christian” (if any rational or Biblical meaning can be made of such a phrase)? Making every effort to walk in godliness and righteousness is to work out our salvation allowing for the heart of God to lead us in sanctification. Making every effort is not about doing, it is about becoming. Our doing is not what leads us in sanctification—it is the work of Christ through us. The Pharisees, contrary to popular modern teachings, began and maintained their practices out of a desire for faithfulness, to obey the Law of God, and to learn from their exile; in doing so, the result was a heart far from God. They had the best intentions, but this is not the example that we should attempt to follow.
On the other side of the spectrum is the one who scores lowly on the questionnaire. Is this not the poor in spirit, the ragamuffin, the beggar before the throne of grace? Jesus calls the poor in spirit blessed, but low test scores will only ever yield two potential results: demoralization or apathy. Even if the results of such spiritual examinations are not publicly shared and were instead meant strictly for personal introspection, the consequences could be dire because this rational denies the very basic nature of human psyche: most experienced shame is not interpersonal. Rather, shame is primarily introspective.
In either case, be it the pharisee or the ashamed, the problem is not avoided by maintaining confidentiality. The matter at hand speaks to the issue of one’s heart posture.
The other concern is similar to that experienced by the psychiatric industry: should all questions be equally weighted? If one believer prays with the deepest sincerity and waits upon the voice of the Lord but does not regularly engage in reading Scripture (potentially because of illiteracy), is that believer lacking spiritual devotion? If another believer reads Scripture as thoroughly as a devote scholarly monk, gives generously to all in need, serves the Church vigorously, but does not wait upon the Lord in prayer, should that believer find comfort in the high score received on the “Christian Life Assessment”? The results should be considered misleading at best.
In addition to avoiding paths of shame and legalism, we must ensure that the heart of the Father is always well represented within our congregations. The Church must always be a home fashioned after the father of the prodigal son. While the son was a long way off, returning not as a son but as one begging to be a lowly servant, the father ran to embrace him, to celebrate the return of his son. If this heart is not displayed in all of our God-conversations, then we misrepresent His holiness. It must also be noted that the elder son fell into the trap of evaluating his relationship with his father through his deeds: “These many years I have served you, and I have never disobeyed your command” (Luke 15:29). The faithful deeds of the elder son did not determine his relationship with his father just as the unfaithfulness of the prodigal did not sever him from the love his father.
Is the heart of the Father prominently, clearly, and boldly displayed when His children are instructed to quantify their relationship with Him? Does this reflect the parable of the prodigal son? If I, sinful and broken, would be appalled and heartbroken at such a practice with my own children, how much more is He who is holy? Worldly “wisdom” would teach us that we should be commended for wanting to improve our place as His children; this worldly perspective is disgraceful. Heaven, instead, whispers and roars: “know My love.” Likewise, the God of Heaven is a romantic whose heart is set on His bride. Are we to believe that this Lover would approve of His bride quantifying the relationship dynamics? Such a suggestion is repulsive.
To any who would suggest that this reaction is excessive and not fitting for the circumstances, I say that I have not gone far enough. To any who would suggest that the matter at hand is not a gospel issue but rather a difference of perspective and approach, I say that everything is a gospel issue—anything that even potentially misrepresents the Gospel of Christ is an abomination. To any who would suggest, as it has already been suggested to me, that I am only reacting because it strikes at an area of prior wounding, I say, simply, of course! Of course this is an area in which I am wounded. I was once something else. I was once lost. I was once held in judgment to the sincerity and faithfulness of my religious deeds (and lack thereof). But now I am not. Should this not be an area of wounding for all who know the love of Christ? I have seen better; I have tasted what is good; I will not return to prior ways!