History of the Enneagram


Before diving into the particulars of the Enneagram of Christlike Virtues, we thought it would be helpful to take a quick survey through the Enneagram’s history. This is important because we need to address some of the debate and confusion people have about its historical roots. 

Would you be surprised to know that for most of its history the Enneagram had almost nothing to do with personality types? The word Enneagram just means a nine-pointed diagram, and it has had many uses over time. 

First, no individual or faith tradition can claim to be the creator or ultimate authority on the Enneagram. There have been diverse influences, expressions and applications throughout its history. We’ll highlight a few of the Enneagram’s notable historical influences now:

Evagrius Ponticus (345-399 AD) was a fourth century Christian monk who identified eight vices: Gluttony, Lust, Avarice (Greed), Sadness, Anger, Acedia (Sloth), Vainglory (Deceit), and Pride. Two centuries later, St. Gregory the Great (590 AD) revised the list into what is famously known as the Seven Deadly Sins: Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, and Pride. Vices and Deadly Sins have been a prominent feature of Christian spirituality teachings for centuries, with the Enneagram contributing to a resurgence of interest and attention in them in modern times.

Ramon Llull (1232–1316) was a 13th-14th century Franciscan theologian and mathematician who created several nine-pointed diagrams, including this one published in Ars Brevis in 1307 that highlighted nine virtues of God. Interestingly, Llull used this diagram as an evangelistic tool. He sought to demonstrate to unbelievers the existence of God by highlighting God’s virtues. He used the same diagram to also describe the nature of vices. Notice that there are lines connecting each point with each other. Meaning virtues beget all the other virtues, and vices can beget any and all other vices. This is in fact the Enneagram diagram we are adopting for the Enneagram of Christlike Virtues. 

The exact origin of the Enneagram diagram consisting of a circle, triangle, and hexad is unknown, but was made public in 1916 by the enigmatic Armenian mystic George Gurdjieff (1875-1949). Gurdjieff sought spiritual wisdom from various faith traditions including Muslim Sufism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity. Gurdjieff believed this symbol to be a source of special knowledge about the cosmos because of the mathematical laws (the law of seven and the law of three) it represented.

As mentioned earlier, the Enneagram symbol in fact had little to do with personality types. The Enneagram of Personality framework was developed later by Bolivian philosopher Oscar Ichazo (1931-2020) in the 1950s and 60s. Ichazo claimed to receive supernatural revelation about the connection between the Enneagram symbol and the nine personality types while under a trance. One of Ichazo’s pupils, Chilean psychologist Claudio Naranjo (1932-2019) brought the Enneagram of Personality to the United States and integrated it with concepts from Western psychology. He later instructed Catholic teachers who further integrated facets of Christian spirituality with the personality typology.

In summary, there have been diverse historical influences that have shaped what we read about or teach on the Enneagram today. We may find ourselves feeling comfortable about some of these influences, and queasy about some others. What is an appropriate Christian response to the Enneagram? We believe that the content, meanings, and application of Enneagram teachings need to be carefully tested and filtered through our understandings from Scripture. We seek to do our best to integrate the parts that are helpful, and to filter out the parts that are incompatible with our Christian faith.

The framework we are presenting excludes some of the more recent emphasis on personality types but retains a lot of the valuable wisdom and insight about deadly sins and Christlike virtues that are an important part of Christian spirituality.

Complete and Continue  
Discussion

0 comments