Introduction
A defining feature of the Anglican Church is its historic commitment to the three-fold orders of ordained ministry, embracing deacons, priests and bishops. Alongside its commitment to ordained ministry, the contemporary Anglican Church welcomes a variety of authorized lay ministries. A well-established form of lay ministry within the Anglican Church is that of Readers, with roots in the Church of England during the second half of the nineteenth century. The aim of the present study is to examine, from a psychological perspective, the potentially distinctive contribution being made to the contemporary ministry of the Church of England by this particular form of lay ministry.
The history and development of Reader Ministry within the Church of England has been documented by a series of commentators, including King,Footnote 4 Lawton,Footnote 5 and Hiscox.Footnote 6 The order was revived at a meeting of Archbishops and Bishops at Lambeth Palace on Ascension Day 1866, largely as a means to extend the effectiveness of the traditional parochial system to new pioneering work on the boundaries between church and world. From that point onwards the role of the Reader has evolved to mirror much more closely the liturgical role of the clergy. In 1941 Readers were allowed to read the epistle, but not the gospel, to administer the chalice but not the paten, and to preach at Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer, but not at Holy Communion. In 1969 Readers were authorized to read the gospel and to preach at Holy Communion. In 1969 the ministry was extended to women as well as to men.
Comparisons between the figures for 1959/1960 published by the Church of EnglandFootnote 7 and the figures for 2006 published by the Church of EnglandFootnote 8 demonstrate the increasing significance of Reader ministry over this period. In 1959/1960 there were 6452 licensed Readers; by 2006 the number of licensed Readers had increased to 8013 with a further 2207 Readers with permission to officiate and active emeriti. During the same period the number of licensed stipendiary clergy had fallen from 15,582 to 8988 and the number of licensed non-stipendiary clergy (including ordained local ministers) had risen from 287 to 3011.
The crucial question raised by the development and expansion of Reader ministry concerns the extent to which this remains a distinctive ministry with distinctive potential, or whether it is simply the extension of significant components of ordained ministry to authorized lay people. The service for the admission and licensing of Readers, approved in 2006, provided the following words of commission.
Readers are called to serve the Church of God and to work together with clergy and other ministers. They are to lead public worship, to preach and teach the word of God, to assist at the eucharist and to share in pastoral and evangelistic work. As authorised lay ministers they are to encourage the ministries of all God's people, as the Spirit distributes gifts among us all. They are called to help the whole church to participate in God's mission to the world.
In many ways this commission is not dissimilar from the commission provided by the ordinal for the ordination to priesthood, except for the authority of eucharistic presidency and of the absolution of sins. The view that Reader ministry may be designed primarily to supplement ordained ministry is conveyed (perhaps unintentionally) in several recent texts designed to foster vocations as Readers, as evidenced by the collection of essays, subtitled Reader Ministry Today, edited by Kuhrt and NappinFootnote 9 or by the volume, titled Reader Ministry Explored, written by Rowling and Gooder.Footnote 10
The report, Reader Upbeat,Footnote 11 celebrates the ‘vital and outstanding’ contribution of Readers to the life and ministry of the Church of England since the reintroduction of the ministry in 1866, and argues that ‘this is an important time’ for Reader ministry to be strengthened and given clear and new directions. This report both emphasizes the distinctiveness of Reader ministry and also the continuities with ordained ministry. On the one hand, the case is argued that there are ‘new opportunities on the boundary of the church’ that Readers are uniquely positioned to grasp, given their status as theologically trained and articulate lay people fully involved with the issues of working life, voluntary work, leisure and relationships. Accordingly, it is envisaged that Readers will take up a great variety of chaplaincy work, forge new opportunities for the public presence of the church, and be active in ‘fresh expressions’ of church. On the other hand, Reader Upbeat argues for a closer continuity between Reader ministry and the ministry exercised by ordained clergy. The recommendations include the possible appointment of a Reader as Reader-in-Charge of a congregation, and the possible appointment of a Reader to a House-for-Duty post. Another recommendation strengthens the view of Reader as a transitional ministry, leading ‘to the vocational diaconate or to the priesthood’.
The tension between conceptualizing Reader ministry as a distinctive pioneering ministry and conceptualizing Reader ministry as continuous with established ordained ministry can be tested against established theoretical and empirical frameworks concerned with the psychology of ministry and rooted in personality theory and research. A considerable body of data has been assembled over the past two decades documenting the personality profile of Anglican clergy, drawing attention to the significant difference between the personality profile of clergy and of the general population and discerning the potential strengths and weaknesses of the clergy personality profile. If in the current generation serving Readers are largely clones of the clergy, we might expect close similarities between the personality profile of Readers and the personality profile of clergy. If, however, Reader ministry is recruiting candidates capable of extending the scope of authorized ministry, building bridges with the unchurched and equipped to pioneer fresh expressions of church, we might expect some significant differences between the personality profile of Readers and the personality profile of clergy.
Within the broad field of personality psychology, three main models have been applied among Anglican clergy serving in England. The application of Eysenck's dimensional model of personality among Anglican ordinands, as proposed by the Eysenck Personality Inventory,Footnote 12 and subsequently extended by the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire,Footnote 13 was first reported by Towler and Coxon in their classic study, The Fate of the Anglican Clergy.Footnote 14 Subsequent studies using Eysenck's dimensional model among Anglican ordinands and clergy were reported by Francis and his colleagues.Footnote 15
Cattell's Sixteen Personality Factor Model, as proposed by Cattell, Eber and TatsuokaFootnote 16 and subsequently developed by Cattell, Cattell and CattellFootnote 17 was for a while used quite extensively in programmes of clergy formation by the Edward King Institute and subsequently subjected to scrutiny in a sequence of research papers by Musson.Footnote 18
The model of psychological type, as proposed originally by JungFootnote 19 and developed through a series of instruments, like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator,Footnote 20 the Keirsey Temperament Sorter,Footnote 21 and the Francis Psychological Type Scales,Footnote 22 has also been used quite extensively in programmes of clergy formation, as evidenced by Goldsmith and Wharton.Footnote 23 More recently a series of studies has reported on the psychological type profile of Anglican clergymen and clergywomen both in WalesFootnote 24 and in England.Footnote 25
Within the broad field of personality psychology, so far only one study has focused on Readers in the Church of England. In this pioneering study, Musson, Hammersley and FrancisFootnote 26 employed Cattell's Sixteen Personality Factor Model among a sample of 57 male trainee readers and 75 female trainee readers from six Anglican dioceses of central England. The profiles of these male and female trainee readers were then compared with the profiles of Anglican clergymen (N = 441) and clergywomen (N = 55) published by Musson.Footnote 27 The data demonstrated that male trainee readers differed from clergymen in terms of ten of the sixteen personality factors and that female trainee readers differed from clergywomen in terms of five of the sixteen personality factors. The three main limitations with this study concern the facts that it is based on trainee readers (rather than experienced readers), that the comparisons are based on small numbers (only 57 male trainee readers and 55 clergywomen), and that the Cattell model of personality may not be the most productive model with which to compare the profiles of clergy and Readers. In this context there are three reasons for questioning the use of Cattell's model. The first reason arises from psychometric theory and from the general observation that Cattell's constructs are broadly based rather than highly focused, with consequent low levels of internal constancy reliability. The second reason arises from Musson's careful examination of item behaviour within Cattell's scales when used among clergy. Some items are poorly worded when read through the lenses of religious professionals. The third reason arises from the comparative lack of recent studies among clergy using the Cattell model.
Against this background, the three-fold aim of the present study is to build on Musson, Hammersley and Francis's work by drawing on a larger sample of experienced Readers, by employing the model of psychological type, as originally proposed by Jung, and by situating these new data alongside the authoritative survey of 237 clergywomen and 626 clergymen serving in the Church of England published by Francis, Craig, Whinney, Tilley and Slater.Footnote 28 Jung's model of psychological type offers a particularly productive lens through which to study those involved in religious ministry for two main reasons. First, the four main psychological constructs utilized and operationalized by the theory map particularly powerfully onto areas of relevance for individual differences in terms of both religious expression and of ministry practice.Footnote 29 Second, in recent years a considerable body of data has been assembled to enable comparisons to be formulated between individuals engaged in different forms of ministry and within different denominational contexts. These studies include Presbyterian Church of Scotland ministers,Footnote 30 Bible College students,Footnote 31 evangelical church leaders,Footnote 32 missionary personal,Footnote 33 evangelical lay church leaders,Footnote 34 Roman Catholic priests,Footnote 35 youth ministers,Footnote 36 evangelical Anglican seminarians,Footnote 37 Assemblies of God theological college students,Footnote 38 leaders within the Newfrontiers network of churches,Footnote 39 Anglican clergy serving in Wales,Footnote 40 Anglican clergy serving in England,Footnote 41 and leaders within the Apostolic network of churches.Footnote 42
As popularized through books like Gifts Differing,Footnote 43 psychological type theory distinguishes between four bipolar psychological perspectives: two orientations (introversion and extraversion), two perceiving functions (sensing and intuition), two judging functions (thinking and feeling), and two attitudes toward the outer world (judging and perceiving). According to this model, the two orientations (introversion and extraversion) and the two attitudes (judging and perceiving) define the kind of context within which the individual human psyche functions. The two perceiving functions (sensing and intuition) and the two judging functions (thinking and feeling) define the mental processes involved in interpreting and making sense of the world.
The two orientations are concerned with where energy is drawn from and focused. On the one hand, extraverts (E) are orientated toward the outer world; they are energized by the events and people around them. They enjoy communicating and thrive in stimulating and exciting environments. They tend to focus their attention upon what is happening outside themselves. They are usually open people, easy to get to know, and enjoy having many friends. On the other hand, introverts (I) are orientated toward their inner world; they are energized by their inner ideas and concepts. They enjoy solitude, silence and contemplation, as they tend to focus their attention on what is happening in their inner life. They may prefer to have a small circle of intimate friends rather than many acquaintances.
The two perceiving functions are concerned with the way in which people perceive information. On the one hand, sensing types (S) focus on the realities of a situation as perceived by the senses. They tend to focus on specific details, rather than the overall picture. They are concerned with the actual, the real and the practical and tend to be down to earth and matter of fact. On the other hand, intuitive types (N) focus on the possibilities of a situation, perceiving meanings and relationships. They may feel that perception by the senses is not as valuable as information gained as indirect associations and concepts impact on their perception. They focus on the overall picture, rather than on specific facts and data.
The two judging functions are concerned with the criteria which people employ to make decisions and judgements. On the one hand, thinking types (T) make decisions and judgements based on objective, impersonal logic. They value integrity and justice. They are known for their truthfulness and for their desire for fairness. They consider conforming to principles to be of more importance than cultivating harmony. On the other hand, feeling types (F) make decisions and judgements based on subjective, personal values. They value compassion and mercy. They are known for their tactfulness and for their desire for peace. They are more concerned to promote harmony, than to adhere to abstract principles.
The two attitudes toward the outer world are determined by which of the two sets of functions (that is, perceiving S/N, or judging T/F) is preferred in dealings with the outer world. On the one hand, judging types (J) seek to order, rationalize, and structure their outer world, as they actively judge external stimuli. They enjoy routine and established patterns. They prefer to follow schedules in order to reach an established goal and may make use of lists, timetables or diaries. They tend to be punctual, organized and tidy. They prefer to make decisions quickly and to stick to their conclusions once made. On the other hand, perceiving types (P) do not seek to impose order on the outer world, but are more reflective, perceptive and open, as they passively perceive external stimuli. They have a flexible, open-ended approach to life. They enjoy change and spontaneity. They prefer to leave projects open in order to adapt and improve them. Their behaviour may often seem impulsive and unplanned.
According to Jungian theory, for each individual either the preferred perceiving function (sensing or intuition) or the preferred judging function (thinking or feeling) takes preference over the other, leading to the emergence of one dominant function which shapes the individual's dominant approach to life. Dominant sensing shapes the practical person; dominant intuition shapes the imaginative person; dominant feeling shapes the humane person; and dominant thinking shapes the analytic person. According to Jungian theory, it is the function opposite to the dominant function which is least well developed in the individual (the inferior function). Thus, the dominant senser experiences most difficulty with the intuitive function; the dominant intuitive experiences most difficulty with the sensing function; the dominant thinker experiences most difficulty with the feeling function; and the dominant feeler experiences most difficulty with the thinking function.
Francis, Craig, Whinney, Tilley and Slater set their study of 626 clergymen and 237 clergywomen serving in the Church of England within the context of the UK population norms published by Kendall.Footnote 44 These data demonstrated that Anglican clergymen differed significantly from the general population of men in three ways. The largest difference occurred in terms of the perceiving process where 62 per cent of the clergymen preferred intuition, compared with 27 per cent of the male population. The second largest difference occurred in terms of the judging process where 54 per cent of the clergymen preferred feeling, compared with 35 per cent of the male population. The third difference occurred in terms of the attitude toward the outside world, where 68 per cent of the clergymen preferred judging, compared with 55 per cent of the male population. On the other hand, there were no significant differences in terms of the orientations, where 57 per cent of the clergymen preferred introversion and so did 53 per cent of the male population. These data also demonstrated that Anglican clergywomen differed significantly from the general population of women in two ways. The largest difference occurred in terms of the perceiving process, where 65 per cent of the clergywomen preferred intuition, compared with 21 per cent of the female population. The second difference occurred in terms of the orientations, where 54 per cent of the clergywomen preferred introversion, compared with 43 per cent of the female population. On the other hand, there were no significant differences in terms of the judging process (where 74 per cent of the clergywomen preferred feeling and so did 70 per cent of the female population) or in terms of the attitudes toward the outer world (where 65 per cent of the clergywomen preferred judging and so did 62 per cent of the UK female population).
In their interpretation of these data, Francis, Craig, Whinney, Tilley and Slater drew two main forms of conclusions. The first conclusion concerned the implications of the differences between the profile of clergy and the profile of the general population among whom they ministered. In particular, they highlighted the disparity between the worldview of intuitives (so strongly represented among clergy) and the worldview of sensers (so strongly represented among the general population). The second conclusion concerned the implications of the clergy profile for the ways in which clergy conceptualize and implement their ways of doing ministry.
The present study provides the first opportunity to explore to what extent Readers share a psychological type profile in common with the clergymen and clergywomen studied by Francis, Craig, Whinney, Tilley and Slater or to what extent Readers bring to the Anglican ministry in England a different and complementary psychological type profile to that displayed by clergy. Data on the psychological type profile of Readers has been generated for the present study through the Francis Psychological Type Scales.Footnote 45 While the Myers-Briggs Type IndicatorFootnote 46 was designed primarily for individual consultation and the Keirsey Temperament SorterFootnote 47 primarily for self-assessment, the Francis Psychological Type Scales were designed primarily for research purposes and consequently provide an instrument that is simple to administer and straightforward to complete.
Method
Procedure
Over a period of time Readers participating in a range of workshops concerned with psychological type and preaching completed an established measure of psychological type and agreed as part of the programme to their data being used for research purposes.
Instrument
Psychological type was assessed by the Francis Psychological Type Scales.Footnote 48 This 40-item instrument comprises four sets of ten forced-choice items related to each of the four components of psychological type: orientation (extraversion or introversion), perceiving process (sensing or intuition), judging process (thinking or feeling), and attitude toward the outer world (judging or perceiving). Recent studies have demonstrated this instrument to function well in church-related contexts. For example, Francis, Craig and HallFootnote 49 reported alpha coefficients of 0.83 and for the EI scale, 0.76 for the SN scale, 0.73 for the TF scale, and 0.79 for the JP scale.
Sample
The sample comprised 108 men and 128 women. Among the men 12 per cent were under the age of fifty, 21 per cent were in their fifties, 30 per cent were in their sixties, 22 per cent were in their seventies, and 9 per cent were in their eighties. Among the women, 16 per cent were under the age of fifty, 36 per cent were in their fifties, 38 per cent were in their sixties, and 10 per cent were in their seventies.
Data Analysis
The scientific literature concerned with psychological type has developed a distinctive way of presenting type-related data. The conventional format of ‘type tables’ has been used in the present paper to allow the findings from this study to be compared with other relevant studies in the literature. In these tables the psychological type profiles of the male and female Readers are compared with the psychological type profiles of Anglican clergymen and Anglican clergywomen as reported by Francis, Craig, Whinney, Tilley and Slater. The statistical significance of differences between the present sample and the population norms and the Anglican clergy are tested by means of the Selection Ratio Index (I), an extension of the classic chi-square test.Footnote 50
Results
The first step in the data analysis examined the internal consistency reliability of the scales from which the type categories were derived, employing the alpha coefficient.Footnote 51 The following coefficients were found: extraversion and introversion, 0.81; sensing and intuition, 0.78; thinking and feeling, 0.71; judging and perceiving, 0.81. All of these coefficients are above the respectable level of 0.65 proposed by DeVellisFootnote 52 and indicate that the instruments are functioning reliably among this sample.
Table 1 presents the psychological type profile of the 108 male Readers. These data demonstrate that male Readers display clear preference for introversion (69 per cent) over extraversion (32 per cent), clear preference for sensing (62 per cent) over intuition (38 per cent), clear preference for feeling (58 per cent) over thinking (42 per cent), and clear preference for judging (81 per cent) over perceiving (19 per cent). In terms of dominant type preferences, 44 per cent of the male Readers are dominant sensing types, 22 per cent are dominant intuitive types, 20 per cent are dominant feeling types, and 14 per cent are dominant thinking types. The two most highly represented types among male Readers are ISFJ (24 per cent) and ISTJ (17 per cent).
Table 1. Type distribution for male Readers compared with Anglican clergymen
Table 2 presents the psychological type profile of the 128 female Readers. These data demonstrate that female Readers display clear preference for judging (71 per cent) over perceiving (29 per cent), clear preference for feeling (64 per cent) over thinking (36 per cent), slight preference for introversion (54 per cent) over extraversion (46 per cent), and a balance between sensing (50 per cent) and intuition (50 per cent). In terms of dominant type preferences, 34 per cent of the female Readers are dominant sensing types, 27 per cent are dominant intuitive types, 27 per cent are dominant feeling types, and 13 per cent are dominant thinking types. The four most highly represented types are ISFJ (13 per cent), ISTJ (13 per cent), ESFJ (13 per cent), and INFJ (12 per cent).
Table 2. Type distribution for female Readers compared with Anglican clergywomen
Table 1 takes the analysis one step further by testing the psychological type profile of male Readers against the type profile for clergymen in the Church of England published by Francis, Craig, Whinney, Tilley and Slater. In terms of the binary distinctions, these data demonstrate: that male Readers are significantly less inclined than clergymen to prefer intuition (38 per cent compared with 62 per cent); that male Readers are significantly more inclined than clergymen to prefer judging (81 per cent compared with 68 per cent); that male Readers are significantly more inclined than clergymen to prefer introversion (69 per cent compared with 57 per cent); and that there is no significant difference between male Readers and clergymen in terms of preference for feeling (58 per cent and 54 per cent respectively). In terms of dominant type preferences, the main significant difference between male Readers and clergymen occurs in respect of the dominant sensing category: while 44 per cent of male Readers prefer dominant sensing, the proportion stands at 21 per cent among clergymen. Two other striking differences emerge between the male Readers and the clergymen reflecting their differential preferences for sensing and intuition. While the type ISFJ accounts for 24 per cent of the male Readers, this type accounts for just 9 per cent of the clergymen. While the temperament SJ accounts for 56 per cent of the male Readers, this temperament accounts for 31 per cent of the clergymen.
Table 2 also takes the analysis one step further by testing the psychological type profile of female Readers against the type profile for clergywomen in the Church of England published by Francis, Craig, Whinney, Tilley and Slater. In terms of the binary distinctions, these data demonstrate: that female Readers are significantly less inclined than clergywomen to prefer intuition (50 per cent compared with 65 per cent); that female Readers are significantly less inclined that clergywomen to prefer feeling (65 per cent compared with 74 per cent); that there is no significant difference between female Readers and clergywomen in terms of preference for introversion (54 per cent and 54 per cent respectively); and that there is no significant difference between female Readers and clergywomen in terms of preference for judging (71 per cent and 65 per cent respectively). In terms of dominant type preferences, the two significant differences between female Readers and clergywomen occur in respect of dominant sensing and dominant feeling: while 34 per cent of female Readers prefer dominant sensing, the proportion stands at 19 per cent among clergywomen; while 27 per cent of female Readers prefer dominant feeling, the proportion stands at 39 per cent among clergywomen. In terms of temperament, compared with clergywomen the NF temperament is significantly less evident among female Readers (32 per cent compared with 50 per cent) and the SJ temperament is significantly more evident among female Readers (39 per cent compared with 29 per cent).
Discussion and Conclusion
The present study set out to examine the psychological type profiles of a sample of 236 experienced Readers within the Church of England (108 men and 128 women) and to compare these data with the psychological type profiles of a sample of 863 clergy within the Church of England (626 men and 237 women) published by Francis, Craig, Whinney, Tilley and Slater.Footnote 53 The rationale underpinning the project suggested that evidence of this nature could explore the tension apparent in the recent report, Reader Upbeat,Footnote 54 between conceptualizing Reader ministry as a distinctive pioneering ministry and conceptualizing Reader ministry as continuous with established ordained ministry. The notion was advanced that, if in the current generation serving Readers are largely clones of the clergy, we might expect close similarities between the psychological type profile of Readers and the psychological type profile of clergy. If, however, Reader ministry is recruiting candidates capable of extending the scope of authorized ministry, building bridges with the unchurched and equipped to pioneer fresh expressions of church, we might expect some significant differences between the psychological type profile of Readers and the psychological type profile of clergy. Four main conclusions emerge from these new data.
The first conclusion concerns the orientations, namely the distinction between introversion and extraversion. In their study of Anglican clergy, Francis, Craig, Whinney, Tilley and Slater found that female clergy preferred introversion significantly more frequently than the female United Kingdom population norms (54 per cent compared with 43 per cent). They concluded that there is a danger that the wider female population may view female clergy as somewhat withdrawn, aloof and disengaged from society. Within the framework of psychological type theory, there may be the need for pioneer ministry to complement the profile of female clergy with a stronger preference for extraversion. The present study, however, demonstrates that female Readers closely mirror the preference for introversion displayed by female clergy (54 per cent).
Among male clergy, Francis, Craig, Whinney, Tilley and Slater also found a preference for introversion (57 per cent), although not significantly higher than that recorded by the UK male population (53 per cent). This preference for introversion among male Readers is, however, significantly more pronounced than is the case among male clergy (69 per cent compared with 57 per cent). In terms of the two orientations, Readers emerge as more like clergy clones than like pioneer ministers.
The second conclusion concerns the perceiving functions, the distinction between sensing and intuition. In their study of Anglican clergy, Francis, Craig, Whinney, Tilley and Slater found that both male and female clergy preferred intuition significantly more frequently than men and women in the UK population norms (female, 65 per cent compared with 21 per cent; male, 62 per cent compared with 27 per cent). They concluded that there is a danger that, given the high preference for sensing among the UK population (73 per cent among males and 79 per cent among females), the wider population may view clergy as ‘dreamers’, ‘too heavenly minded to be any earthly good’. Within the framework of psychological type theory there may be the need for pioneer ministry to complement the profile of clergy with a stronger preference for sensing. The present study demonstrated that this is indeed the case with 62 per cent of male Readers preferring sensing (compared with 38 per cent of clergymen) and 50 per cent of female Readers preferring sensing (compared with 35 per cent of clergywomen). On the other hand, Readers remain less inclined to prefer sensing than is the case among the UK population, where sensing is preferred by 73 per cent of men and by 79 per cent of women. In terms of the two perceiving functions, Readers have some claim to be extending the personality profile of those engaged in ministry to reflect more closely the profile of the society in which they live and work.
The third conclusion concerns the judging function, the distinction between thinking and feeling. In their study of Anglican clergy, Francis, Craig, Whinney, Tilley and Slater found that male clergy preferred feeling significantly more frequently than the male UK population norms (54 per cent compared with 35 per cent). They concluded that there is a danger that, given the higher preference in the UK population for feeling among women than among men (70 per cent compared with 35 per cent), the wider male population may view male clergy as displaying a characteristically feminine personality profile, appearing sentimental, and reluctant to handle difficult questions about beliefs and social justice. Within the framework of psychological type theory, there may be the need for pioneer ministry to complement the profile of male clergy with a stronger preference for thinking. The present study, however, demonstrates that male Readers closely mirror the preference for feeling displayed by male clergy (58 per cent).
Among female clergy, Francis, Craig, Whinney, Tilley and Slater also found a clear preference for feeling (74 per cent) although not significantly higher than that recorded by the UK female population (70 per cent). Female Readers, however, display a significantly lower preference for feeling than is the case among female clergy (64 per cent compared with 74 per cent). The overall picture remains, nonetheless, that the profiles of male and female clergy and of male and female Readers are strongly in the direction of feeling, leaving the tougher masculine profile of thinking notably absent from the field of Anglican ministry.
The fourth conclusion concerns the attitudes toward the outer world, the distinction between judging and perceiving. In their study of Anglican clergy, Francis, Craig, Whinney, Tilley and Slater found that male clergy preferred judging significantly more frequently than the male UK population norms (68 per cent compared with 55 per cent). They concluded that there is a danger that the wider male population may view male clergy as rigid, inflexible and unable to handle change or spontaneity. Within the framework of psychological type theory, there may be the need for pioneer ministry to complement the profile of male clergy with a stronger preference for perceiving. The present study, however, demonstrates that male Readers are even more inclined to prefer judging than male clergy (81 per cent compared with 68 per cent).
Among female clergy, Francis, Craig, Whinney, Tilley and Slater also found a preference for judging (62 per cent), although not significantly different from that recorded by the UK female population (65 per cent). The preference for judging was of a comparable level among female Readers (71 per cent). The overall picture remains that the profiles of male and female clergy and of male and female Readers are strongly in the direction of judging, leaving the more flexible profile of perceiving notably absent from the field of Anglican ministry.
Taken together, these four conclusions strongly suggest that, in the current generation, the psychological type profile of serving Readers fits them more adequately to conduct a model of ministry already well established by the ordained clergy than to extend that ministry in pioneering new directions. Within the current cohort of Readers, it may be in particular the minority (8 per cent of males and 18 per cent of females) combining preferences for extraversion and for perceiving, who could find themselves in the strongest position to fulfil the vision of the report Reader Upbeat, to forge new opportunities for the public presence of the church, and to be acting in ‘fresh expressions’ of church.
The present study has employed psychological type theory and empirical investigation to test aspects of the potential distinctiveness of Reader ministry, compared with that of ordained clergy. A significant weakness of the present study concerns the nature of the sample. The conclusions are based on just 236 Readers (compared with 863 clergy), and even these 236 Readers were obtained by opportunity sampling. In order to build on the present study there is the need for a systematic survey of those engaged in Reader ministry capable both of providing a more authoritative psychological type profile and of establishing how individual differences in the psychological type preferences of Readers may lead to significant differences in the ways in which their ministry is expressed.
