Why you must do the hard work of thinking about scripture

"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." (Rom 12:2)

Paul tells us to be transformed by "the renewal of your mind". Whatever that may mean, it seems clear enough that the renewal of our minds is for the purpose of discerning God's will. Discernment has to do with understanding. Paul's point is that if we are to understand and work out the will of God, we have to - at some level - engage our minds in order to know it.

In Isaiah 1:18, God says "come now, let us reason together". God wants to reason with you. But reason, by definition, requires the engagement of our minds. We reason with our brains, thinking and working out what seems reasonable. God, who is far above us and does not need to tell us why or how he does anything, nevertheless calls us to reason with him. Who are we that God should explain himself to us? Yet, he chooses to explain and communicate something about himself to you and I.

Here, then, lies the issue. If we are prone to throwing up our hands and saying "I don't understand" to shut down thinking through scripture, or we refuse to engage with God's word meaningfully, we are throwing God's gracious desire to reason with his creatures back in his face. We are saying to God "I don't care what you have communicated, and I don't care that you condescend to reason with someone like me, I don't want to engage". God wants to communicate with you, he wants to reason with you, he gives us his word so we can understand something about him. If God is there and he has communicated something to us, surely it is vital for us to work out what he has to say.

Now, I am not saying it is wrong to find the Bible difficult to get your head around. It can be hard to understand at times. What I am saying is that we should not throw up our hands in despair, claim we can't understand and therefore not bother trying. Simply because something is hard does not make it worthless. Simply because something is hard doesn't mean we should give up trying to pursue it. Simply because understanding God's word involves engaging our brains in work that is sometimes difficult and intense does not mean we should give up trying to understand it altogether.

Rather than throwing in the towel, perhaps we should pray that the God who communicates would make his word clear to us. It makes sense that if God wants us to understand him, he will make himself understood and help us if we bother to ask. It means rather than saying "this is too difficult", we should wrestle with the text until we come to understand it. We should engage our brains in trying to understand and our prayers in asking God to make it known. That may be hard, that may take a long time, we may not be natural readers and thinkers but it is the necessary work we must all do if we are to understand what God has to say to us.

God calls us to renew our minds so we can discern his will. His will is written for us in scripture. That means we must engage our minds and wrestle with even the hardest bits of the text so we can understand what God has to say. If God wants to reason with us, we must be prepared to reason with him. We must be prepared to engage our minds and work out what seems reasonable based upon what he communicates. 

In reality, if we won't engage our brains we are not really loving the Lord in the way he commands us to do (Mk 12:30; Lk 10:27). We may love him with our hearts and desires, we may serve him with our strength but if we won't sit and do the hard work of thinking about the Bible we are still holding back our minds from the Lord. To do that is to fail to love him in the way he demands to be loved.

3 things my 1 year old son has taught me about God

This last week, on the 13th November, my son turned 1. During this time, I have learnt an enormous amount - far more than during my theological studies - about God and myself. It is not that I didn't know these things before but they have become more real, and painfully obvious, to me since becoming a father. And, of course, it is no coincidence God is cast as a Father in scripture. There are a whole ream of things I could share but here are three things my son has taught me about God and myself this year:

God is always faithful; I am impatient and lack trust
Even this morning, my son and I went through our usual routine. I got him up and dressed - during which he played and was incredibly happy. I took him downstairs and poured some milk into his bottle (at which his eyes lit up). I took the bottle over to the microwave to warm it for 30 seconds. It was then he decided to get angry. This is a daily occurrence.

Clement loves his food. He doesn't tantrum a lot (praise God) but, when he does, it is usually over food and drink. Either he wants some, wants more or wants it quicker. This morning, when he got angry, I said to him "I get you your milk every morning, warm it and have never yet failed to give it to you. What do you think is going to happen?" Lo and behold, when the milk appeared again, Clem had his bottle and all was once again well.

It was a poignant reminder that God has never yet failed to sustain or uphold me, even during times of difficulty. He has never once failed to deliver on his promises and has, over the course of my life, given me all sorts of things which I acknowledge come from him and for which I thank him. Yet, so often, I throw little tantrums of my own effectively questioning whether God will give me this or that. They are the sort of things he hasn't yet failed to give me, so I have no reason to doubt he won't give them to me now, but so often I do. I am either impatient, wanting them now, or question that he will give them to me at all. My son has taught me the truth of Mt 7:11.

God wants my good; I am defiant
It is undoubtedly true that Clem knows the difference between right and wrong. Not all right and wrong but certainly he knows what 'no' means. I know this because sometimes, when I say no, he turns around and stops batting the thing he was touching. Equally, I know he is defiant because sometimes, when I say no, he turns around with a big grin and sticks his hand straight back on the front of the fireplace we have repeatedly told him not to touch.

Most of the time, my son's desire to touch stuff is irksome rather than grievous. He has a mountain of toys we use to distract him. The toys are eminently more fun than touching the tivo box or poking a plug socket. Nevertheless, toys become boring compared to the sheer delight of doing something he knows he shouldn't. The actual value of that decision, objectively speaking, is minimal (touching a glass front on a fireplace really isn't that exciting!) But the very act of defiance is what makes it appealing. What he doesn't realise is when we ask him not to touch the fire we aren't out to spoil his fun. Rather, it is something for his own good.

Every time I say no to Clem (especially when he defies me), I am reminded of how gracious God is to me. He has given me all sorts of good things to enjoy in the world. Yet, often, I think the most appealing things are those to which he says 'no'. When I pursue them, their value turns out to be minimal - or, more usually, detrimental - to me. Yet, pursue them I do. Rico Tice, in Christianity Explored, gives the example of a beach in Australia with signs up saying "Beware! Sharks." We have to ask whether the signs are there for our own good or simply to spoil our fun. In the same way, we must ask whether God's word is there to stop us enjoying ourselves or if he intends it for our good. When he says no, it is always for our benefit. When we defy him, just like my son, we say we know better and touching a fire seems like a good idea.

God loves me; I question his care
When my son does what he shouldn't, discipline usually follows. Typically, this involves some sort of "time out" or being held so he can't play. It is inevitably accompanied by tears and screams as he hates being stopped from doing what he wants (even if what he wants is eminently stupid!)

Now, I don't stop loving my son when he defies me. I'm certainly not full of hate and contempt when I discipline him. Usually, especially given his age, his little acts of defiance are little more than a bit irritating. Often, it's not even that - it's just a bad habit for him to get into (such as touching the fire). The discipline is a corrective measure more often than not. It is occasionally meant as a punishment too but, even in those circumstances, is a corrective to his behaviour. To leave him to it, and ignore behaviours that I know will be destructive, would be a surefire sign that I don't love or even care about my son.

In the same way, I am reminded how much God loves me. Not only has he given me a world to enjoy and his word for my good but he also disciplines out of love. Both Proverbs 3:11f and Hebrews 12:3-17 make this truth clear. His discipline is a sign that we are his children. Though no discipline is pleasant at the time, as the writer to the Hebrews says, "it later yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it". God disciplines his children out of love just as I do my son. He does it to train us, to refine our characters where they need refining. To enact no discipline when we err would be to suggest we are illegitimate sons - one's whom he doesn't really care for at all. Discipline is for the good of the one being disciplined and is a sign of love and care. It is a sign of wanting the best and seeking to stop destructive behaviours (1).

Notes

1. The same applies in the church. Church discipline is a sign of love and care for an individual. To enact no discipline is to suggest we don't care about destructive behaviours for them or the church

On the "stand up and greet time"

Thom Rainer recently produced a post on the top ten ways to drive guests from your church. He followed this up with a post here, after a slew of comments in relation to his inclusion of "having a stand up and greet time" in his original article. Tim Challies has responded to this with his own article: How I learned to Embrace the Stand and Greet Time. The following is my two-penneth.

In his original article, Thom Rainer highlights the extreme revulsion many guests have to the stand up and greet time in the service. His follow up article makes clear that many have, not only refused to come back to the church after such trauma, but left mid-service as a result. 

In his response, Tim Challies honestly admits that he too finds it awkward and difficult. However, he argues in favour of a stand up and greet time, basing this on two key arguments. Firstly, he wants to argue church is not all about me and my comfort. Sometimes we have to do things that are uncomfortable in order for the church to fulfil its function. Secondly, he argues church is for the believer. Though unbelievers should factor in what we do, he says, their comfort shouldn't take precedence. It is what builds up the believer that should be paramount.

So, what do these various articles present us with? Each makes valid points. When we work through them, we are left with three basic facts: (1) visitors - believers and unbelievers alike - despise stand up and greet times and will not return to a church if one exists; (2) church members should not make the church about their own preferences and comfort; (3) what happens in the church exists primarily to build up believers.

The question that remains is whether there is some way to hold these facts in tension. Some of us, I suspect, would be tempted to drop one of the assertions at this point. Most likely, if that's our solution, we either deny the problem of (1) or we reject the assertion in (3). Personally, I subscribe to all three statements but I believe there is a simple solution.

Firstly, although (2) is undeniably correct, it rather misses the point. (2) is only relevant to the discussion if stand up and greet times (a) actively build up the church membership and (b) that what goes on in the church only exists to build up believers. As such, though (2) could be relevant to the discussion, it is only relevant once we have determined (a) and (b).

At this point, we must address (3). It is certainly true that what happens within the church is primarily for the upbuilding of the membership. However, that does not mean the upbuilding of the membership is the only priority of the church. Indeed, if the church is concerned with mission, how we relate to those outside (especially if they have been brave enough to cross the threshold into a foreign church culture) is surely more than a footnote on our service. It is certainly true, the comfort of the unbeliever isn't paramount. Were it, there would likely be no real preaching of the gospel. But that isn't to say their comfort doesn't matter at all and we should ride roughshod over it because one element - indeed, one pretty small element - of the service might benefit believers but make unbelievers uncomfortable in the process.

That leads on to our answer to (a) - does a stand up and greet time actively build up the membership anyway? The sheer number of believing respondents - those who are sympathetic to the church - who seem to loathe stand up and greet times would suggest not. What is the purpose of the stand up and greet time? If it is to be welcoming - yet makes everyone uncomfortable - then it seems to have failed. If it is to build up believers, one is unclear how a forced handshake and contrived greeting (or, in worse cases, hugs and literal renderings of "holy kiss") do anything of the sort. It also begs the question what the point of being greeted at the door (and, in some cases, over coffee pre-service by several others) if we're all going to be forced to do it again mid-service.

On top of all this, there is a point that appears to have been missed in discussion. Are there any ways of welcoming unbelievers, building up believers and encouraging church members to look outside of themselves without making everyone uncomfortable or compromising the purposes of the church? It strikes me there are plenty of ways to do this. 

Most churches do this over tea and coffee before or after the service and train their members in how to welcome guests. Not only does this achieve the same purpose as the stand up and greet time, it actually exceeds it. The greeting (both the timing and the nature of it) are not contrived and forced. It means visitors are not "on display" when being welcomed and are not pushed into meangingless conversations they (nor the other participant) particularly want. It also means church members are built up all the more. Shaking hands and smiling politely at a brother or sister at an enforced point mid-service does not build up in nearly the same way as an intentional approach for a genuine conversation that was taken by choice.

So can we hold all three comments in tension. Yes, I think we can. Though church is primarily for the building up of believers, if believers are rarely built up by a stand up and greet time, it is not doing anything to achieve that purpose. Though visitors hate stand up and greet times, if it does little to build up many believers it seems perverse to insist upon it when neither the church nor the visitors gain from it. Though church members are supposed to look outside of their own comfort in order to build up the church, that doesn't mean we must persist with uncomfortable things simply because they are uncomfortable. Members need only be pushed outside their comfort zone when their comfort is stopping them doing something scripture suggests they should, or should not, do. If there is a way to build up other believers that makes us uncomfortable, we should certainly do that. However, it seems stand up and greet times are not one of them.

Church can build up believers without stand up and greet times. Visitors will feel more welcome without a stand up and greet time. Church members can be encouraged to build up the body over and against their own preferences without a stand up and greet time. Given all that, I'm unsure what is to be lost if we simply canned the practice. There seems to be much to gain by dropping it.

Six reasons to pursue fellowship, community and hospitality

Yesterday, I posted here on the cost of community, hospitality and fellowship. It's important we understand what true fellowship, real community and genuine hospitality look like if we are to have any hope of actually pursuing them. But, having done that, it seems worth giving some reasons why community, hospitality and fellowship are vitally important (despite the cost to ourselves). So, here are a few:

Jesus commanded it
It's always the natural place to start whenever we ask ourselves why we ought to do anything. Jesus commanded us to engage in fellowship, community and hospitality. In John 13:34f, he tells us the sign that we are truly believers is that we love one another as he loved us. Without spending time together, just as Jesus spent time with his disciples, we are going to struggle to do this. The Lord's command should be reason enough for us to do this.

Jesus modelled it
Jesus did much of his ministry in homes over meals. He reaches out to unbelievers this way and he trained his disciples this way too. The Last Supper and the feeding of the 5000 is recorded in all four gospels, Jesus meal with Levi is found in all but John's gospel and the feeding of the 4000 is in Matthew and Mark's gospel. That's four meals in thirteen passages. Add to that the meal at the houses of Pharisees (Luke 11:37-54 and 14:1-24), the meal with Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10), and the meal that followed Jesus’ resurrection appearance on the Emmaus Road (Luke 24:13-34). Even then, the list of meals is not complete. Nevertheless, it is clear that Jesus saw fellowship, hospitality and eating together as vital to ministry. If, as John says, we are to "walk in the same way in which he walked" (1 John 2:6) that must include this form of fellowship and community.

The Early Church did it
We read in Acts 2:42-47 that the Early Church were devoted to fellowship and hospitality. The passage outlines precisely what their fellowship entailed: studying the word, praying together, eating together and spending time with one another in homes. Such hospitality and fellowship is pressed by Paul (Rom 12:13), Peter (1 Pet 4:8-9) and the writer of Hebrews (Heb 13:1-2) as well as being a central part of the criteria for church leadership (1 Tim 3:2; Ti 1:8).

It will make your joy complete
The apostle John speaks plenty about fellowship. In particular, his comments in 1 John 1:3-4 and 2 John 1:12 link our fellowship to our joy. In 2 John, the apostle is clear enough that his joy would be complete when he is able to physically spend some time with the people to whom he is writing. It doesn't take much to note that his presence with them, engaging in real fellowship, will complete his joy in a way that a long-distance relationship simply can't. In 1 John, his comments are even more surprising. He says "we are writing these things to you so that our joy may be complete" (my emphasis). Immediately prior to this comment, he says the reason they are proclaiming their message is "so that you too may have fellowship with us" (1 John 1:3). So, John's joy will only be complete when he can truly enjoy the fellowship of these other believers. There is something special when we engage in true, genuine fellowship between believers.

It makes church discipline meaningful
It is an unfortunate fact of life that some people who profess belief will fall into sin. It is an even worse fact that some who profess faith within the church may not even be believers (cf. 2 Pet 2:1). Scripture tells us not to be surprised by such things but to be on our guard and swift to act when they become apparent. One such example of dealing with a serious disciplinary matter in the church is outlined in 1 Corinthians 5. Paul's clear guidelines for dealing with believers in open sin (cf. 1 Cor 5:1-2 & 9-13) make absolutely no sense if we have not already pursued, and enacted, true fellowship like this. If we never spend time together, eat together or share life together Paul's sanctions in 1 Corinthians 5 suddenly look totally toothless.

It will aid your growth
If Ephesians 4:11-16 is teaching anything, it is talking about how the church will grow its members. Principally, it is through the exercise of various gifts for the mutual upbuilding of the body. Certainly such cannot exist without a framework of fellowship and community. But, note also that Paul says as we speak "truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ". Again, it is incredibly hard to grow together and to speak truth into one another's lives without close fellowship and community. What opportunities are there to do this otherwise? Paul makes this same point in reverse in 2 Thessalonians 1:3 as does Peter in 2 Pet 1:5-8. There seems to be a symbiotic relationship between our love, and fellowship with, one another and our growth in faith. As the one increases, so does the other.

12 ways to look godly while not growing in your faith

Carl Laferton published two lists of ways to look godly whilst not growing in your faith. He offered six items for 2013 and six for 2014. They are as follows:

1. Regularly go away for the weekend and go to a different church
2. Be too busy doing ministry to pray or read your bible
3. Think hard about how sermons apply to others
4. Talk to work colleagues and friends about church, but never about Christ
5. Use family as an excuse for not committing to ministry; use ministry as an excuse for not serving your family
6. Buy Christian books and put them straight on your bookshelf
7. Multitask your quiet time
8. Ask for prayer without praying yourself
9. Talk about application without actually doing it
10. Only do ministries that are noticeable or enjoyable
11. Refuse to accept encouragement
12. Rearrange the Christian books on your bookshelf

Both lists can be found here and here. It is worth looking at how these things are justified as making us appear godly whilst stunting our growth altogether.

Something of a conundrum...

An issue cropped up in two separate conversations I had recently. In the first, both I and my fellow interlocutor independently reached the same conclusion on the issue but were both uncertain about the mechanics and the validity of the position. I thought I would share the problem and the tentative solution in the hope some kindly readers would interact with it and share some helpful thoughts. It is very much an honest question with only an attempted answer.

In the reformed view of the ordo salutis, the Spirit regenerates, leading to conversion and justification, and then follows the lifelong work of sanctification which ultimately culminates in our glorification (which can be understood as complete sanctification). Evidently, the work of regeneration which leads to our conversion and justification is a work of the Spirit. Similarly, the ongoing work of sanctification, culminating in our glorification, is also a work of the Spirit.

In Ezekiel 36:24-28, the prophet writes these words:

“I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God."

Ezekiel is clear there will come a time when God will give his people new hearts and put his Spirit within them. It seems apparent this had yet to happen at the time of writing and, when it did, this would help God's people to walk in his ways.

Similarly, in John 16:4b-7, Jesus says these words:

"I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you. But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you."

Unless Jesus' is making an arbitrary, or untrue distinction, we must conclude the Spirit [Helper] had not yet come and did not yet dwell in the hearts of believers at the time Jesus was with the apostles. It would appear from Acts 2, the indwelling of the Spirit - as per Jesus' words - followed his ascension.

Jesus teaching in John 3 is clear that one must be born of the Spirit in order to see the kingdom of God. Reiterating this teaching, 1 John 3:24 states "Whoever keeps his [Jesus'] commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us." John goes on in 4:13 "By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit."

The problem is thus: if the reformed ordo salutis is correct, how did believers prior to Christ's ascension come to be regenerate and sanctified if the Spirit, at that time, did not dwell in their hearts?

The dispensationlist has a ready answer to the problem; namely, God works differently across the dispensations. Unfortunately, this view is less tenable than the problem presented to the reformed view. It does not account for the universal nature of Jesus' teaching in John 3 nor John's statements in 1 John. Neither does it account for Abraham's credited righteousness, and the salvation of plethora other characters in the OT, which only ever refer to salvation by faith - belief in a future messiah just as NT believers looked back to a historical messiah.

The tentative answer (to which I am not particularly wedded and of which I am not wholly convinced) seems to lie in the nature of repentance. It is possible God moved individuals to repentance in the OT without dwelling in their hearts. Certainly, our current experience of justification and ongoing sanctification is never complete until our ultimate glorification when we reach Heaven. For OT believers, there could have been a process of justification without the ongoing sanctifying work of the Spirit in their lifetime with sanctification coming simultaneously upon their glorification. Just as there are some further along the road to sanctification than others, but none of us ultimately sanctified until glory, OT believers may have begun and ended their process of sanctification in glory whilst still being justified.

Anyway, thoughts would be appreciated.

Learning from the idiot in the room

Here is a great article from Mez McConnell titled 'Learning from the idiot in the room'. Let me strongly urge you to read it.

In it, he urges us to consider the following things when discussing with people from outside our theological/ecclesiastical "tribe":

• How is what this person saying challenging my long held beliefs?

• How have they arrived at their conclusions? What’s their (biblical) thought process been and how/why is it different to mine?

• Are my personal prejudices against this person (and/or their tribe) stopping me from really listening and engaging with this person? Have I made my mind up not to learn before we even start? Is this going to be more about debate and point scoring than mutual learning?

• Is there something I can actually learn here without compromising my doctrinal beliefs?

• Could I be wrong?

• Have I changed my mind about anything in the last few years? Have I ever, come to that matter?

Ask yourself (as I ask myself), how often do I do these things? Am I unable to learn from another person because of my own pre-existing prejudice? Is the idiot in the room really the person I'm talking to or the person in the conversation I know rather better?

Why can't we spot our biggest flaws?

I previously posted about John Newton's observation that many Christians live with obvious character flaws which impede growth and affect our witness. I reproduced Tim Keller's list of 'foibles' that Christians often justify, leading to stunted growth, rather than tackle for real growth.

Here, Keller addresses the question of why we fail to spot these obvious flaws in our own character and why we continue to live in a way that often robs others of joy and God of his glory. He comments:

Virtues of gifts and temperament have a corresponding "dark side" because our gifts and natural temperament are bound up with the idols that dominate any not heart filled with the gospel of grace. Without a thorough knowledge of the gospel, we look to good things—human approval and relationships, the exercise of power and accomplishment, the control of our environment and self-discipline, the enjoyment of comfort, privacy, and pleasure—and make them into pseudo-salvations. So the person who makes an idol out of human approval may be a sensitive artist, and the one who makes an idol out of power might be a courageous leader. But gifts and temperament in the service of idols—and this is our normal state—always are a mixed blessing. They have a good side—they produce virtuous behavior—but they lead the person into a corresponding sin or vice as well.  

As a result, people cannot see their sins because they look only at their virtues. For example, someone may say, "I'm not abrasive, I just speak very directly." It is true that a direct-speaking person may do good because direct, blunt comments are sometimes needed. But overall the abrasiveness is ineffective, and the person's boldness and confidence comes to some degree from pride and a lack of love. And for this reason, many (or perhaps most) Christians do not work on the supernatural graces of the spirit that are not natural to us, and that mitigate or eliminate the dark side—the besetting sins—of our nature.

I encourage you to read the whole article for yourselves. Cross-reference Keller's suggestions for real growth in this article with your 'foibles' listed here.

Repentance for our faults and "foibles"

According to John Newton, most Christians generally avoid committing the most gross sins. However, he argues many never actually achieve much in the way of spiritual growth because they coast on their strengths and do little about their weaknesses, robbing both themselves and others of joy whilst simultaneously failing to bring glory to God. Worse still, Newton argues, those who harbour such behaviours self-justify them as mere "foibles" because they "may not seem to violate any express command of Scripture". Nevertheless, Newton comments these behaviour are "properly sinful" because they are the opposite of the fruits of the spirit the Christian is supposed to exhibit.

Tim Keller, taking a lead from Newton, argues that such behaviours mean "large swaths of the Christian population have little influence on others for Christ. While our faults always seem small to us due to the natural self-justification of the heart, you can be sure they don't look so small to others".

Newton offered a list of specific examples of those who act in such ways in Blemishes in Christian Character. Tim Keller, following Newton's example, has also created a similar list which is useful for self-examination (also found here). Here are some things we should look to stamp out if we see them in ourselves:

Austerus is a solid and disciplined Christian but abrasive, critical, and ungenerous in dealing with people, temperamental, seldom giving compliments and praise, and almost never gentle.

Infitialis is a person of careful and deliberate character but habitually cynical, negative, and pessimistic, always discouraging ("that will never work"), unsupportive, and vaguely unhappy.

Pulsus is passionate, yes, but also impulsive and impatient, not thinking things out, speaking too soon, always quick to complain and lodge a protest, often needs to apologize for rash statements.

Querulus is a person of strong convictions, but known to be opinionated, a poor listener, argumentative, not very teachable, and slow to admit wrong.

Subjectio is a resourceful and ambitious person, but also someone who often shades the truth, puts a lot of spin on things (close to misrepresentation), is very partisan, self-promoting, and turf-conscious.

Potestas gets things done but needs to control every situation, has trouble sharing power, has a need to do everything him or herself, and is very suspicious and mistrustful of others.

Fragilis is friendly and seeks friends, but constantly gets feelings hurt, easily feels slighted and put down, is often offended and upset by real and imagined criticism by others.

Curiosus is sociable but enjoys knowing negative things about people, finds ways of passing the news on, may divulge confidences, and enjoys confronting too much.

Volatilis is kind-hearted and eager to help, but simply not reliable—isn't punctual, doesn't follow through on promises, always over-extended, and as a result may do shoddy work.

As Keller helpfully says "Look at these and ask which one or two most describe you. Have the courage to ask someone else you know, too... look both at why so many of us seem to be stuck in these character flaws instead of growing and changing to be of more godly character".