By their own admission, the men who devised the modern I.Q. test weren’t very smart about it.
In 1904, the French government hired psychologist Alfred Binet to find a way to identify learning-impaired children.
But the researcher assumed smarter kids would have bigger brains, hence larger heads. He was wrong. Eventually, Binet and a friend established a more accurate measure of intelligence by making a list of questions and tasks “normal” children should be able to do by a certain age. If, for example, an eight-year-old boy could perform at the level of a ten-year-old, he was given a “mental age” of ten.
Stanford University psychologist Lewis Terman modified that test to come up with the Intelligence Quotient, or I.Q.. He took each child’s mental age, divided it by their chronological age and multiplied by 100. That meant children with ”average” intelligence ended up with an “average” I.Q. of 100.
But Terman thought everyone’s intelligence was as unchangeable as their eye colour, so offering help to slow learners was a waste of time and money. In fact, Terman believed the overall intelligence of society could be improved by the “selective breeding” of smart people, combined with laws forbidding the unintelligent from having children. He wanted his I.Q. test used to identify the feeble-minded.
By the end of World War One, thousands of new soldiers were getting a standardized I.Q. exam called “the Alpha test”. That data was analyzed by researcher Carl Brigham who wrongly concluded that intelligence was far lower among blacks and people from southern and eastern European countries, such as Italy and Russia. His ideas were so influential on immigration policy that tens of thousands of eastern European Jews were kept out of North American, dooming them to the Nazi holocaust less than 20 years later.
But Carl Brigham slowly came to realize just how wrong his racist theories were, and he publicly trashed them as “pretentious” and “without foundation,” writing a whole book to debunk his earlier ideas. He eventually saw that intelligence had to do with many factors, including genetics, family environment, and education.
Measuring our S.Q.— our Spirituality Quotient — is just as complex, and many attempts to evaluate it in others go drastically wrong. For starters, it’s a mistake to assume that Christians with big heads are more spiritual than quieter, less confident ones. Nor can we gauge someone’s spirituality, just by their age or the number of years they’ve been in the church.
That’s because, above all, spiritual capacity depends on humility, responsibility and availability. Our potential is unlimited, provided we put aside our pride to make Jesus Lord of our lives, embrace the accountability that comes with his forgiveness, and submit to his will out of gratitude. Thanks to the mercy and energy of God, our spirituality can be constantly enriched. Paul says if we “continue to live in obedience” and root our lives in Christ’s love “you’ll grow in faith, strong and vigorous in the truth” (Col. 2:6,7). Remember that when you’re tempted to tell yourself you’ll never know, do or be enough to satisfy God or his people. If you’re not where you should be, don’t fixate on the problem, fix the problem, using the Spirit’s power.
We must refuse to prejudge the spirituality of others, or assume they can’t or won’t change. We must ensure we don’t subtlely use such prejudice to keep people out of the church because of a misguided fear of watering down our holiness. And we must recognize our mutual need for a strong, loving congregation because, like intelligence, spiritual development does depend on family and education.
But there is a standardized Alpha test for all of us. Jesus said, “I am the Alpha and the Omega — the Beginning and the End. To all who are thirsty, I’ll give the water of life without charge! All who are victorious will inherit these blessings… and they’ll be my children.” (Rev. 21:6,7). It’s your I.D. God cares about, not your I.Q.