I agree with your points concerning psychological testing. A lot of this depends on exactly what we mean by “psychological testing.”

Concordia Theological Seminary (http://ctsfw.edu), at the time I was there, had instituted a personal development program as required by their supervisory board within the church body. This program was essentially a psychological testing regime. I remember beginning seminary and absolutely hating the idea of it. It seemed completely counter to the idea of the Holy Spirit working among men.

In retrospect, though, what they were doing was making us aware of our limitations and strengths and, simultaneously, identifying areas in which we could grow as pastors. (That is, areas where we could play to our strengths, and weaknesses that would need to be overcome or compensated for.) Some of this was done with a couple of standard batteries (like Myers-Briggs), the remainder was through personal interaction with the results and some other documents we had to prepare. From an Orthodox perspective, it was, in many respects, similar to what a good spiritual father would provide.

If this is the shape of psychological testing, I think it’s valuable, especially if some of it is done during the discernment phase of formation.

Excellent post thank you. This parallels conversations I’ve been having in the diocese of the midwest (OCA).

One note, if I may, about psychological testing. While it has its value, it (1) must serve the discernment process of the local church (diocese/parish) and (2) cannot, and must not, substitute for the local church (and especially the bishop) knowing the man.

Psychological testing has become common (dare I say popular) because we don’t know the men we are sending to seminary and are subsequently ordaining. And as near as I can tell–and fyi, I’m a psychologist by profession–the test are meant to protect the diocese/seminary from lawsuit then to actually help in the formation of future clergy. I’ve talked to clergy who has shared with me the content of their psychological evaluation and who have told me that worrisome results did not result in therapy, much less their ordination being delayed or even that they be required to take a break from seminary.

Especially for converts, I think we need to slow down the process of ordination.

Steve,
Know that I had Orthograph #6 somewhat in mind when I wrote my question. Why?, indeed.

I don’t think someone with an inner “desire” to become a priest is therefore unworthy of it. The initial thought given to ordination is often the starting point for testing the vocation. Further, I think the inner calling (i.e., the part that originates within the individual) is a valid and important part of the overall call. (Do we want priests who don’t want to be priests at all? Hmmm. That might lead to some interesting cases of pastoral malpractice.)

I don’t think the inner call alone, though, is sufficient to set upon the road the ordination. Indeed, St. Paul mentions the desire (as you rightly point out), but then moves on to a list of external tests. What I really want to see is more thorough discernment all around.

“…if a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work.”

Much of what I hear about discerning priestly vocation goes something like: ‘unless the man dives out the second-story window screaming when someone brings up the priesthood, he is unsuitable. No one ought to become a priest who isn’t dragged to the altar in chains by the emperor’s guards.’ Or, some variation thereof.

But St. Paul’s own words would suggest that dispassionately “desir[ing] the position” is to desire a good thing. St. John Chrysostom hid, St. Basil didn’t. (although St. John did make him cry…)

I know the article is focusing more on external *evaluation*, but I’d appreciate your (pl.) thoughts on the ‘no chains = unworthiness’ line.

SubDn. Lucas Christensen
All Saints Church
Bloomington, IN