Tim LaHaye, the Richest Divinator in the World

[Guest guest]

http://www.yuricareport.com/RevisitedBks/TimLaHayeDivinator.html

 

Tim LaHaye, the Richest Divinator in the World

 

 

 

All about LaHaye before he co-authored the Left Behind series

 

 

 

[Yurica Report Editor's Note: The Bible prohibits using divination

of any kind or being " an observer of times, " in Deuteronomy 18:10-11.

Christians are not supposed to be trying to figure out what the future

holds! Yet millions of evangelical Christians have blindly followed

the teachings of Tim LaHaye, but few know that he is the father of a

divination system. His so-called " Temperament Theory " is nothing more

than a variant form of astrology. It is no wonder then that right wing

religious followers of LaHaye are being led into political back rooms

where corrupt political ideology is pawned off as " Christian. " In the

hope that the backslidden churches will wake up before it is too late,

we suggest this essay be passed on to your friends, neighbors and

family and to all in those churches who follow men rather than Truth.]

 

 

 

An excerpt from The New Messiahs

 

By Katherine Yurica

 

 

 

 

 

The Humoral Theory of Temperaments

Misrepresentation of Facts

The Response from Science

Astrology and the Four Temperaments

Endnotes

 

 

 

 

 

When Dr. Tim LaHaye complained that his photograph in Time

magazine wasn't flattering enough, he said it to a national audience.

He was chatting amiably with Phil Donahue while Donahue's audience

made up their own minds about his good looks. However, it wasn't the

first time the Southern Baptist minister appeared on a nationally

televised program. He was a frequent guest on the Jim Bakker Show,

(before Bakker's conviction and imprisonment) and on Pat Robertson's

700 Club. In fact, his influence spread to the highest corridors of

power. He was an honored guest at the White House where he was

consulted by Reagan administration officials for his opinion on

potential appointees.

 

 

 

During the Reagan years, LaHaye and his wife, Beverly, poured

financial support into law suits that challenged America's textbook

industry. Not only was he very vocal about the changes he desired to

make in the educational system in the country, but as a natural

organizer, he set up one successful organization after another.

 

 

 

Beverly LaHaye became active herself as the founder and president

of Concerned Women for America, an anti-feminist organization with a

network of 540,000 women " who were committed to protecting the rights

of the family through moral activism. " Impressed, President Reagan

appointed her to his Family Policy Advisory Board. Perhaps even more

significant, was the political network that was formed when wife

Beverly's organization worked in conjunction with her husband's other

associations.

 

 

 

One of them, the American Coalition for Traditional Values (ACTV,

pronounced " active " ), had political observers buzzing over its growth.

Between 1984 and 1985, over 100,000 fundamentalist pastors joined it.

If that weren't enough to establish his popularity and political

acumen, LaHaye burst onto bestseller lists and became the second most

popular evangelical author in American history with over seven million

books sold. By 1999, his bookselling prowess had not diminished;

writing with Jerry Jenkins, a former sportswriter, the two penned a

series of " Left Behind " novels that chronicle life on the eve of the

Second Coming of Christ and have sold well over 60 million copies.

Over a twenty year career, LaHaye's book sales have placed him well

ahead of all other American writers.

 

 

 

In one of the more bizarre turns of the modern fundamentalist

movement, four of his early books were on temperament analysis, and

were in fact, the topic that launched LaHaye's great influence on the

Christian community, which in turn granted him power in political

circles. Starting with Spirit Controlled Temperament, which was

followed by Transformed Temperaments, The Male Temperament and Your

Temperament: Discover Its Potential, all were published by Tyndale

House Publishers, a leading evangelical press from Wheaton, Illinois.

They were translated into 21 languages and they were used by three

missionary societies to train their candidates for the mission field.

 

 

 

Notwithstanding the fact that he has had no academic training in

the field, he was hailed by fundamentalists as an innovator in

psychology. Indeed, LaHaye claimed expertise in psychological

counseling and cited his Family Life Seminars as evidence of hands on

experience. He said that over the years he literally counseled

thousands of people by mail, and he claimed that he developed " The

LaHaye Temperament Test, " which he said has been administered to more

than 10,000 people at $20 a test.

 

 

 

LaHaye claimed his work was scientific and he spoke of his

psychological theory of temperament with pride. He's fond of quoting

an unnamed " leading industrial psychologist " about his theory: " It's

the best single theory of human behavior yet devised. " [1]

 

 

 

The praise is all the more significant when one considers LaHaye's

academic background. He holds a B.A. from Bob Jones University where

he majored in " Bible, " and he earned a " Doctor of Ministry " degree

from Western Conservative Baptist Seminary. This latter degree is a

nonacademic work-project degree that allows a student to independently

pursue his personal and professional interests largely off-campus in

his own church. In this case, it was LaHaye's " counseling " project

that earned him his degree. It also earned him his fame and fortune.

 

 

 

LaHaye advertised that each mail order participant would receive

an impressive psychological analysis: His primary temperament would be

identified along with a description of his predominant personality

characteristics and a list of his ten greatest weaknesses. The package

would also include vocational and marital guidance, special advice to

pastors, singles and divorcees and a list of each person's " spiritual

gifts " —all packaged in a " handsome vinyl leather portfolio. "

 

 

 

LaHaye assured his readers that his temperament theory " is widely

used, " and that modern psychology has found no system with " more

acceptance. " [2] Only, as he put it, " non-Christian psychologists and

psychiatrists [have] been less than enthusiastic. "

 

 

 

Unknown to LaHaye's readers, however, is the fact that temperament

theories like LaHaye's are regarded by respected modern scientists as

a morbid resurrection of a " medieval, prescientific notion " that is

" not seriously held by any psychologist or psychiatrist nowadays. " [3]

The question is, did he take his theory into the Reagan White House in

order to help select candidates for positions in that administration?

 

 

 

 

The Humoral Theory of Temperaments

 

 

 

For the fact of the matter is that Tim LaHaye resurrected a

discredited pseudoscience that owed much of its success to

physiognomy, (the divinatory art of discovering temperaments and

character from outward appearance as from facial features.) He simply

borrowed his " Four Temperament Theory " from writers who borrowed from

the long tradition that grew out of the ancient Greeks' concept of

causes of illness.

 

 

 

For centuries, people believed in the notion that four excessive

bodily fluids (or humors) caused diseases. This belief later led

physicians to the odious practice of bloodletting by using leeches or

cupping. But the four bodily fluids were also linked to distinctive

personality attributes, and this theory, called the " humoral theory of

personality " was assiduously followed by everyone from crackpots to

scholars from the early Greeks to the nineteenth century. It gave

birth to the term " temperament, " which was used to indicate the

prevailing mood of a person, which in turn was based upon the

individual's supposed prevailing bodily fluid.

 

 

 

Thus an excess of yellow bile would supposedly cause a person to

be chronically angry, hence the word choleric (hot tempered, quick to

react), which literally means bile. Similarly, an excess of black

bile would supposedly cause a person to be chronically sad and

depressed, hence the word melancholy. An excess of phlegm meant a

person was slow-moving, impassive and apathetic from the cold, moist

influence of the humor, hence the word phlegmatic. And an excess of

blood was supposed to produce a warm, pleasant mood, hence the word

sanguine, which literally means blood.

 

 

 

All that remains of the humoral theory of temperaments today are

the four words with their singular meanings still basically intact

from the original Greek usage. In fact, the word " temperament " has

disappeared entirely from psychology textbooks in the modern western

world largely due to the discrediting of such typological theories.[4]

 

 

 

However, sometime after 1962, while Tim LaHaye was pastoring the

Scott Memorial Baptist Church in San Diego, California, he stumbled

upon a little book published by the evangelical Augsburg Publishing

House. Temperament and the Christian Faith, by O. Hallesby, had been

originally published in 1940 in Norway, and now appeared for the first

time in an English translation. The book transformed Tim LaHaye's life.

 

 

 

Hallesby was using the four temperaments as a tool of power in

counseling. Realizing that untrained and uneducated Christian

counselors could quickly master a system that promised to reveal the

characteristics of every troubled soul within minutes and offer

" remedies for problems that characterize each temperament, " he vividly

detailed the personality characteristics of each of the four types by

drawing upon the medieval tradition.

 

 

 

This was heady stuff for LaHaye. Not only did he borrow from

Hallesby's book, but he became one writer in a long line of

enthusiasts and practitioners who have embellished and enriched the

temperament theory since ancient times. Like those before him, LaHaye

arbitrarily added characteristics for a type or deleted some. But the

direction was consistently toward descriptive embellishment—adding

positive characteristics to the basically negative temperaments and

negative descriptions to the positive ones. He said that Hallesby's

description of persons of a melancholy temperament was so depressing,

" If I were a Melancholy, I believe I would go out and shoot myself

after reading this. "

 

 

 

Because he evened out the attributes of each type, he was able to

gain greater popularity for the scheme. He claimed all

individuals—although a " mixture " of more than one type—could be

classified by his or her " predominating " temperament but no one need

feel inferior. He said, " No one temperament can be said to be better

than another. " [5]

 

 

 

The next step was to teach others how to detect the four types.

Hallesby had explained in his book, " The temperament is reflected in

the appearance and actions of the physical form, especially in one's

features and facial expressions. " [6]

 

 

 

Hallesby became so competent at the art, he could distinguish a

melancholic from a sanguine just by the way a person packed his

suitcase. Not to be outdone, LaHaye tells how he was easily able to

categorize a whole group of people as melancholic and phlegmatic based

upon his observation of the neatness of their desks and the calm

atmosphere of their office environment. " The clincher, " he said, " was

the petty cash box. " [7]

 

 

 

On the other hand, in another office, LaHaye categorized a whole

group of employees as sanguine and choleric because of their messy

desks and disorganized frenzy. Similarly, LaHaye's wife Beverly

observed deep lines and creases on a " crippled " woman's face on a bus.

She labeled these as " marks of bitterness, resentment and misery, "

which in turn indicated to her that she was observing a choleric or

melancholic type. Apparently it did not occur to her that physical

pain and illness often leave their own traces on a person's face.

 

 

 

Moreover in this grandiose scheme, LaHaye can even analyze the

temperament of a whole people. According to him, all Jews can be

stereotyped by one man. He writes, " I have been intrigued by the

Jewish temperament. After carefully analyzing the temperament of the

first Israelite as he is described in the Bible, I have found Jacob to

be a `dead ringer' for the twentieth-century residents of Israel. " [8]

 

 

 

This is a powerful scheme when you consider that once a person

knows the type—he or she also believes that he knows a great deal

about an individual. For example, according to LaHaye, if you know

that someone's a sanguine, you know he's got a problem with lust; he's

a bad debtor; his word can never be depended upon; and he's

unfaithful. You also know what vocation he ought to pursue. That's a

lot to conclude about a man by the lines on his face or the way he

packs his suitcase. But once you know someone's behavior patterns, you

can make predictions about a person's future behavior. And the hidden

lure behind the scheme is this: if one can predict the behavior of

another person, one can also control that person. As one observer

pointed out, the ability to label others is a formidable tool of power.

 

 

 

For LaHaye, analytical clues are everywhere. Analyzing a person's

temperament is a matter of observation. Temperaments seem to be almost

self-evident. LaHaye writes, " The only person who finds it difficult

to diagnose a sanguine temperament is Mr. Sanguine himself....Many a

Sanguine has sparked peals of laughter from his friends by declaring,

`I just can't figure out which temperament I am.' " [9]

 

 

 

So one looks for manifestations of the major characteristics of

each type. Thus one looks for the " jolly, outgoing, handshaking,

friendly personality " that supposedly typifies people who are

sanguines. Or one looks for a person who is moody or depressed, a

typical quality of the melancholic.

 

 

 

In another of his books, Your Temperament: Discover Its Potential,

published by Tyndale House in 1984, LaHaye gives us some more fabulous

clues. Cholerics, for example, are poor spellers, excel at

speed-reading and " love charts, diagrams, and graphs. " They also like

" history, geography, literature, and psychology. " Phlegmatics, on the

other hand, are absorbed in detail. LaHaye says, " To some phlegs,

balancing their checkbook is the highlight of their month. "

 

 

 

More significant, however, is LaHaye's introduction of graphology

as a prime indicator of the temperaments. He writes:

 

 

 

" I am not an authority on handwriting, but I have observed

that temperament and handwriting analysis are very similar. Our

penmanship usually follows our temperament. Everything a sanguine does

is expressive and flamboyant, and he writes that way. The choleric

usually has poor handwriting. Everything he does is fast;

consequently, he does not take time to write legibly. The phlegmatic

usually has a small but neat handwriting. Melancholies [sic] have the

most unpredictable handwriting of all. They are extremely complex

people and usually write that way. " [10]

 

 

 

It appears the late psychic, Jeane Dixon agreed with LaHaye. In

her forward to Stephen Kurdsen's book, Graphology, the New Science,

Dixon wrote:

 

 

 

" Long ago reputable scientists admitted the unmistakable

relationship between one's handwriting and one's character and of all

so-called `fortune-telling methods,' handwriting indentification [sic]

is still the only one accepted as evidence in a court of law. "

 

 

 

Aside from the fact that " reputable scientists " do not accept the

tenets of graphology and graphology is decidedly inadmissible in any

court of law (only questioned document examinations are admissible),

Jeane Dixon did get one thing right: graphology is still a

" fortune-telling method. " (Bear in mind that graphologists are the

people who brought us the idea that the way we cross our " T's " reveals

our character: thus a thin bar indicates a " weak-willed " person, but a

long bar and to the right indicates " impulsive and creative " individuals.)

 

 

 

The real question remains: what scientific evidence do we have

that supports Tim LaHaye's system? Has he or anyone else conducted

tests of refutation? Has he tried to disprove his theory? As we have

seen, invincibility is not evidence of a scientific theory, rather it

is evidence of dogmatism.

 

 

 

Misrepresentation of Facts

 

 

 

When I contacted the Family Life Seminars I asked for any

information that they might have that would tend to prove the

scientific value of LaHaye's Four Temperament theory. Walter

Leveille, who was the Director of Ministry, seemed to think vaguely

that the four temperaments were taken from the Book of Proverbs, and

therefore needed no scientific support He said, " As far as I know,

there is no licensing by the State or local authorities and we have no

psychologists on our staff who interpret the temperament analysis. "

 

 

 

In support of the temperament scheme, however, he offered this:

" We have administered over 10,000 temperament tests in the last four

years and have had virtually no complaints. We have received many many

letters of praise as to what it has done in the lives of individuals

who have taken the test. "

 

 

 

Notwithstanding the claim to the contrary, the four temperaments

did not originate in the Book of Proverbs. Neither did they originate

from the empirical observations of Hippocrates as LaHaye insists in

his false history of the typology in chapter one of Transformed

Temperaments.

 

 

 

LaHaye wrote that Hippocrates, a Greek physician of the 5th and

4th centuries B. C. " ...recognized temperamental differences in people

and offered a theory to account for these differences. " He claimed

that the Romans failed to advance Hippocrates' work, and that this

same theory arrived intact into the nineteenth century.[11] If that

were not enough, he then chided the distinguished British psychologist

H. J. Eysenck for his alleged ignorance of history. In an incredible

statement LaHaye wrote: " So little was done in personality studies

that when Galen revived the concept in the seventeenth century, one

modern writer, H. J. Eysenck, attributed it to Galen instead of

Hippocrates. "

 

 

 

Later, LaHaye continues, respected modern psychologists like

Wilhelm Wundt took up the scientific investigation of the four

temperaments and " ...performed exhaustive experiments... " The endeavor

thrived in its scientific environment, he tells us, until Sigmund

Freud delivered a " devastating blow to the theory. "

 

 

 

Alas, the falsehoods in this brief " history " are embarrassing.

First of all, if one examines the Hippocratic Collection, one finds

that the doctrine of the humors is not stated at all. It is only

implied; it is in the background and nowhere are the four temperaments

described. Hippocrates obviously had not written a temperament theory.

 

 

 

It appears that LaHaye not only did not examine the original

documents, he didn't bother to read even the most basic contemporary

sources such as a dictionary or The New Encyclopaedia Britannica under

the heading Temperament. If he had, he would have discovered that the

idea of temperament originated with Galen, not with Hippocrates. And

that Galen was a Greek physician and writer of the second century A.D.

and not the 17th century as he so confidently wrote.

 

 

 

Contrary to LaHaye's claims, the four temperaments were originally

based upon a physiological theory that was related to the four basic

elements of earth, air, fire, and water, with all this culminating in

notions of the zodiac. In short, the Greeks were creating a typology

of temperaments based on cosmic forces.[12] LaHaye has the wrong man

in Hippocrates, and even the right man, Galen, did not do what LaHaye

suggests was done.

 

 

 

Moreover, LaHaye misrepresented the work of Wilhelm Wundt, one of

the two modern investigators who have used Galen's four terms (H. J.

Eysenck is the other). Not only did he fail to inform his readers that

the psychologists' use of the terms (sanguine, choleric, melancholic,

and phlegmatic) was in an entirely different sense than LaHaye uses

them, but he made it appear as if their work proved the validity of

the typological theory when in fact both researchers considered it

" absurd. " [13]

 

The Response from Science

 

 

 

If LaHaye, as a Christian fundamentalist, is embarrassed by the

original rationale for the four types—as surely he must be—he is left

with a typology of what amounts to four traits: depressed people,

happy people, angry fast people or slow apathetic people. However,

when modern psychologists have conducted experiments and studies in

behavioral traits, they have found that there exists not four basic

traits but according to the distinguished psychologist, Gordon

Allport, " probably thousands. " [14] They include neuroticism, social

extroversion or introversion, conformity, authoritarianism,

conscientiousness, culture, agreeableness, aggressiveness, amiability,

fearfulness, dependence, and hundreds of others. How many personal

traits does the " typical " person possess? No one knows that answer

today even though it appears that we are much more alike than

different from each other.

 

 

 

Most importantly, Gordon Allport has pointed out that there are no

adequate diagnostic methods in science today that would enable a

psychologist to discover the major lines along which a particular

personality is organized.[15] In other words, traits are not at

present subject to direct empirical observation and test.

 

 

 

There is yet another major quarrel between science, and for that

matter, orthodox Christianity, and LaHaye's temperament scheme. Like

astrologers who claim that the stars determine the fate of a person

and the sign of the zodiac under which a person was born will control

that person's destiny, La Hay teaches that the future behavior of an

unborn child will be largely determined by his genes. Thus the

doctrine of inborn behavior traits has become the indispensable

backbone of LaHaye's teaching. This was essentially the deterministic

view of Galen and the Greek proponents of the temperament theory.

 

Therefore, according to LaHaye, " Temperament traits " are

inherited. If they were not, the value of his typology would be

seriously weakened. He says even a man's marital status can be

determined by his genetically inherited disposition.

 

 

 

LaHaye for instance claimed that some Indian tribes in Mexico were

" shiftless " and " indifferent, " but the Sapotaco Indians were " very

industrious. " Their " adaptability and desire to learn " he said, " could

only be an inherited trait. " [16] Similarly, Hallesby preached the

doctrine, writing, " When the sanguine and the choleric lose their

tempers it is because they have an inborn inclination to do so. " [17]

 

 

 

In contrast, modern science denies that there is sufficient

evidence to infer the existence of inborn character traits such as an

explosive temper, a sense of humor, nervousness , or behavior patterns

in general.[18]

 

 

 

Where does that leave Tim LaHaye's typology and his temperament

test? As the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences points

out, typologies serve two basic functions: they codify and they allow

prediction. They are appealing because they offer simplistic

pigeonholing and an assumed peek into the unknown. Hence they are a

form of divination and fortune telling. They can be as entertaining as

any parlor game, but the real tragedy of such scheme is that

life-and-death advice is being given to people. A " Temperament

Counselor " who advises on a lifetime career, marriage and spiritual

development is likely to influence people's lives for good or ill.

Moreover, the victims often believe that they are really gaining

knowledge about others and often rely upon the scheme to explain and

excuse questionable behavior in others and themselves, instead of

growing and changing by assuming responsibility.

 

 

 

But when the temperament scheme is preached to fundamentalists who

are most apt to respond as " true believers, " the practice can spread

like wild fire. Ministries and even corporations have been formed to

teach the beguiling system.[19] Indeed, if LaHaye took his system into

the White House, a cabinet member also used it to make decisions about

other people.

 

 

 

 

Astrology and the Four Temperaments

 

 

 

Fundamentalist James Watt, the former Secretary of the Interior in

the Reagan administration, attended a seminar with his wife and

children that taught them " Interpersonal Effectiveness. " Leilani Watt

was to credit the system she learned that day with saving her family

from innumerable fights. " It was the turning point for me in

understanding my husband's personality and myself, " she told the group

of women at her table at the annual luncheon for Senate wives at the

White House.

 

 

 

She explained that the system she and her husband learned from

their friend Don Thoren was designed for salesmen: " to help them spot

the personality style of a customer and help them to adjust the sales

pitch accordingly. " In short, it was a system that the Watt family

adopted wholeheartedly and used to handle other people. " If my

husband's critics had known this, they would have changed their

tactics, " she said.

 

 

 

" There are four styles of personality, " she told the Senate wives.

" We all have one developed more than the other, a fact that becomes

obvious in almost every group. No style is right or best. "

 

 

 

The four personality " styles " she listed were the slightly

modified four temperaments of the Greeks and Tim LaHaye's scheme. The

melancholics had become the " analytical style " ; the cholerics had

become the " driving style " ; the sanguines were called the " expressive

style " ; and the phlegmatics had become the " amiable style. " If the

names were different, the characteristics were the same

 

 

 

Thus, Leilani Watt identified herself as an " amiable, " her son as

and " expressive, " and explained that her husband was definitely the

fast paced " driver " type who wanted to skip the details and go to the

bottom line. " When the heat is on, " she confided, " a driver refuses to

change if he believes he's made a good decision. He just keeps moving

ahead. Drivers make good combat leaders. They say `Charge!' in the

face of attack. If the driver is pushed to the extreme, he can walk

away and never have to give in. That's why personal insults or media

pressure never intimidate my husband. He just keeps going. So there

you have it—the real James Watt! "

 

 

 

But people often ask, what is the secret behind the seemingly

accurate readings of personalities? Why does James Watt appear to fit

the personality characteristics of the choleric? The answer is that

the scheme, like many pseudosciences, relies upon circular

explanation. It is very much like asking, " Why does aspirin alleviate

pain? " Explanation: " Because it is a pain-killer. "

 

 

 

Unfortunately, from the scientific point of view, nothing is

explained if the state we have attributed to the person from his

behavior is now invoked as the cause of the behavior from which it was

inferred. Circular explanations give the appearance of a genuine

explanation that offers genuine knowledge. But it is only illusory.

 

 

 

There is another factor that helps schemes like LaHaye's to appear

accurate and trustworthy. Although there are literally hundreds of

personality traits, humans apparently have many traits in common. And

because of this commonality it has been estimated that an astrologer,

for example, has a fifty/fifty chance of accuracy on every horoscope

reading that he does. At least fifty percent of his statements about

his client will be true.

 

 

 

Lawrence E. Jerome has pointed out in his book Astrology Disproved

that the statistical secret of astrology is the fact it has been set

up over the ages to disguise the fact that it has " the mathematical

structure of a true-false test! " [20]

 

 

 

But to my surprise, what is true of astrology may also be true of

LaHaye's temperament scheme. For as I examined it, I found striking

similarities between the two pseudosciences. Consider the fact that

astrology divides mankind into twelve classifications, depending upon

the month and day a person is born, whereas LaHaye divides humanity

into four classifications. But what is even more significant is this:

LaHaye's descriptions of the personality traits of the four types were

interchangeable with descriptions of the characteristics of at least

four astrological types.

 

 

 

LaHaye's sanguines share the same personality characteristics of

the sagittarians of astrology. " They are the outgoing, talkative,

personable people who are mostly actors, salesmen and public

speakers. " The cholerics, on the other hand, are very similar to those

born under the " sign of the Scorpion " ; " they are the strong-willed yet

cruel and sarcastic, determined leaders. " They are the generals and

captains of industry.

 

 

 

Astrologers say that more presidents of the United States have

been born under Scorpio than any other sign. LaHaye says, " Many of the

world's most depraved criminals and dictators have been Cholerics. "

The phlegmatics, like astrology's Taurians, " are the calm, peaceful,

easy going personalities that make good teachers and diplomats. " The

melancholics are the Virgos of astrology. " They are the intellectuals

and perfectionists; they are the moody but gifted artists, musicians,

and inventors of this world. "

 

 

 

Not to be outdone by Jeane Dixon who once wrote a book titled:

Horoscopes for Dogs, a born again believer analyzed the cats in her

neighborhood using LaHaye's charts and readings. According to Dixon, a

Virgo dog " can be as observant as the best art critic. " Therefore, an

ideal vocation for the pooch " ...would be as the guard dog in an art

museum. " [21]

 

 

 

Similarly, the born again Christian said that melancholic cats,

" are highly sensitive and culture conscious creatures. They belong

only in the most discriminating homes. They are naturally critical. A

melancholic kitty does not make friends easily. " On the other hand,

" Sanguine cats are so friendly that they will approach total strangers

and ask for a scratch behind the ears. "

 

 

 

Because I was intrigued with the similarities between astrology

and Tim LaHaye's system, I went to the library and looked at books I

otherwise would never have touched. I opened one at random: The

Compleat Astrologer by Derek and Julia Parker (published by McGraw

Hill). On page 143 I found a list of descriptions for those born under

" Mars-Jupiter " that matched Tim LaHaye's chart on cholerics almost

exactly. Also LaHaye's descriptions of melancholics matched the

astrologers' descriptions of " Venus-Saturn " types. The best way to see

it is to juxtapose the two on a page, and one can clearly see that

whatever else may be true of the two systems, it is clear that both

are involved in the same kind of character or trait descriptions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mars-Jupiter Choleric

will-power strong-willed

optimism optimistic

enthusiasm confident

organizational ability practical

creative talent productive

lacking care and forethought inconsiderate

exaggerated rebelliousness domineering, proud, self sufficient

lack of temperance sarcastic, angry-cruel

 

Venus-Saturn Melancholic

1. successful 1. gifted

2. over-practical 2. impractical

3. sacrifices are made to ambitions 3. self-sacrificing

4. selfishness 4. self-centered

5. small-mindedness, allowing minor faults to assume major

importance 5. critical, negative

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I looked at the two columns, I kept reminding myself that there

is one major question that proponents of these divinatory schemes seem

to leave out of their books: where, I asked, is the scientific

evidence that would tend to prove the truth of the alleged

characteristics?

 

 

 

Significantly, John Addey, a British astrologer, wanted to prove

the truth of astrology, so he gathered statistical studies of polio

victims and the aged. Studying the charts of 1,000 ninety-year-olds,

Addey was disappointed to find that astrology's long life predictions

for those born under Capricorn failed to materialize. " Capricorns

actually survived into their nineties no more frequently " than the

allegedly " short-lived Pisceans. " [22]

 

 

 

Similarly, astrologers Barth and Bennett conducted another study

in order to prove that military careers were pursued by Arians and

Scorpios because of the " influence " of Mars. The men analyzed a total

of 154,500 entries into the U.S. Marine Corps during the years 1962 to

1970, comparing astrological signs for reenlistments and long-timers

with those who dropped out at the end of their first two-year stint.

Barth and Bennett found that Arians and Scorpios " pursue military

careers no more relentlessly than `peace-loving' Librans. " [23]

 

 

 

One could hope for such honesty among fundamentalists. But one

will ask in vain for the published statistical evidence that proves

sanguines don't keep their word, or that cholerics do not tithe, or

that cholerics are leaders, or that they have messy desks, or that

phlegmatics are tithers. Where, in fact, is the evidence that proves

that typology is valid—that classifying people into four types is a

true model of mankind?

 

 

 

After reading Tim LaHaye's embarrassingly untrue and inaccurate

historical facts; and after reading his own assertions that imply

acceptance of his system by the scientific community; and after

reading his claim that his scheme is not only " Christian " but

compatible with the scriptures, I am tempted to paraphrase C. S.

Lewis, who after hearing an incredible statement from a theologian

said: " After a man has said that, why need one attend to anything else

he says about anything in the world? "

 

 

 

Endnotes

 

[1] Tim LaHaye, Your Temperament: Discover Its Potential (Wheaton,

Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 1984) p. 91.

 

 

 

[2] Tim LaHaye, Spirit Controlled-Temperament (Wheaton, Illinois:

Tyndale House Publishers, 1983) p. 10.

 

 

 

[3] H. J. Eysenck, Fact and Fiction in Psychology (New York:

Penguin Books, 1965) pp. 55-56. See also Arnold Buss and Robert

Plomin, A Temperament Theory of Personality Development (New York:

John Wiley & Sons, 1975) p. 1. And Charles Singer and E. Underwood, A

Short History of Medicine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962) p. 47.

 

 

 

[4] Jan Strelau, Personality and Individual Differences

" Biologically Determined Dimensions of Personality or Temperament "

Vol. 3, No. 4, 1982, p. 355.

 

 

 

[5] Tim LaHaye, Transformed Temperaments (Wheaton, Illinois:

Tyndale House Publishers, 1976 edition) p. 20. And it is also stated

in Spirit Controlled-Temperament p. 23.

 

 

 

[6] O. Hallesby, Temperament and the Christian Faith (Minneapolis:

Augsburg Publishing House, 1962) p. 5.

 

 

 

[7] LaHaye, Spirit Controlled Temperament, pp. 22-23.

 

 

 

[8] Tim LaHaye, The Beginning of the End (Wheaton, Illinois:

Tyndale House Publishers, Living Books edition, 1984) p. 45.

 

 

 

[9] LaHaye, Transformed Temperaments, p. 31.

 

 

 

[10] LaHaye, Your Temperament: Discover Its Potential, p. 12.

 

 

 

[11] LaHaye relied upon an erroneous source for his false history

of Hippocrates' work. He quoted from a passage of a 1962 text written

by E. Baughman and George Welsh titled: Personality: A Behavioral

Science (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1962). Unfortunately for LaHaye,

the book was completely revised under the title of Personality: The

Psychological Study of the Individual by E. Earl Baughman in 1972 (New

Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1972) and the erroneous passage, which LaHaye

had quoted was completely expunged from the later edition. The text

which described the alleged empirical method of Hippocrates was

expunged for good reason. The passage was false. LaHaye, however, was

not altogether uninformed, for after all, he admits that he read a

contradictory history and simply chose not to believe it.

 

 

 

[12] G. E. R. Lloyd, Greek Science After Aristotle (New York: W.

W. Norton & Co., 1973) p. 138. Also, W. H. S. Jones in his " General

Introduction " to the translated Hippocratic collection. See also the

article on temperament in the International Encyclopedia of the Social

Sciences. Another fascinating, if not always accurate, source is

Abraham Aaron Roback, The Psychology of Character (New York: Arno

Press, 1973 ed.) in which he suggests that " the four directions of the

compass...might have been a cooperating factor in the establishment of

the fourfold temperament doctrine. " p. 42.

 

 

 

[13] The terms of Galen's four temperaments are being used in

modern psychology—if at all—much as the words " genius " and " idiot " are

used to indicate the two extremes on a scale of intelligence. Most

people fall between these two extremes—they are neither idiots nor

geniuses. Wilhelm Wundt used the terms to describe the speed of

reaction and the strength of emotions of individuals. He found that

few, if any can be categorized into any one of the four extremes.

Similarly, H. J. Eysenck used the terms to indicate various stages of

mental health: in his system, the cholerics are the psychopaths; the

melancholics are the dysthymics (the neurotics, and those suffering

from phobias, obsessions, etc.); whereas the sanguines are the healthy

extroverts and the phlegmatics are the healthy introverts. For a more

complete view of Eysenck's work see: The Structure of Human

Personality (London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1953) pp. 52-62; and The

Causes and Cures of Neurosis (San Diego: Robert R. Knapp, 1965) pp. 14-28.

 

 

 

Significantly, Wilhelm Wundt did not conduct experiments trying

" to relate " the four temperaments to body structure as LaHaye claims.

Nor did Wundt establish the field of constitutional psychology. He

established the field of physiological psychology and was among the

first to popularize the term. Moreover his aversion to constitutional

typology can be seen in his outright dismissal of phrenology—which

taught that a person's character and development could be determined

by the bumps and shape of the head. Calling it " absurd, " Wundt wrote:

" The radical error of the phrenological hypothesis is, that it

substitutes an anatomical for a physiological parallelism. " (From

" Lectures on Human and Animal Psychology " in Significant Contributions

to the History of Psychology 1750-1920 edited by Daniel N. Robinson

(Washington, D.C.: University Publications of America, 1977) pp. 447-448.

 

 

 

[14] Gordon Allport, Pattern and Growth in Personality, p. 342,

quoted by E. Earl Baughman Personality: The Psychological Study of the

Individual (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972 ed.) p. 126.

 

 

 

[15] Allport, Pattern and Growth in Personality p. 367. And see

also, Barbara Engler Personality Theories (Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Co., 1979) p. 238.

 

 

 

[16] LaHaye, Spirit Controlled Temperament, pp. 6-7.

 

 

 

[17] O. Hallesby, Temperament and the Christian Faith, p. 103.

 

 

 

[18] E. Baughman, Personality: the Psychological Study of the

Individual, p. 157. And see also Karl A. Menninger, The Human Mind

(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945) pp. 23-24.

 

 

 

[19] For example, outside of LaHaye's books and Family Life

Seminars there are other proponents of the system. Don Thoren of the

Thoren Group, Tempe, Arizona adapted " Social Style Concepts " which are

based upon the Greek-LaHaye four temperament tradition for

" Interpersonal Effectiveness Seminars. " And Personnel Predictions &

Research (PPR), a division of the Tracom Corporation in Denver adapted

the same system and is apparently selling it to corporations.

 

 

 

[20] Lawrence E. Jerome, Astrology Disproved (Buffalo: Prometheus

Books, 1977) p. 218

 

 

 

[21] Jeane Dixon, Horoscopes for Dogs (Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Co., 1979) p. 30

 

 

 

[22] The John Addey study was reported by Lawrence E. Jerome in

Astrology Disproved, p. 139.

 

 

 

[23] The Barth and Bennett study was reported by Lawrence E.

Jerome in Astrology Disproved, pp. 140-141.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Katherine Yurica is a news intelligence analyst. She was educated

at East Los Angeles College, the University of Southern California and

the USC school of law. She worked as a consultant for Los Angeles

County and as a news correspondent for Christianity Today plus as a

freelance investigative reporter. She is the author of The New

Messiahs, which is presently represented by her literary agent. She is

also the publisher of the Yurica Report.