I just got my copy of Leadership and the first thing I read was "The Hermeneutics Personality Quiz."

By Prof. McKnight's categories, I guess I am inconsistent, but then--only systematic theologians believe that consistency is next to godliness. :-) If you let the Bible speak for itself, things aren't quite so tidy.

If observing a Sabbath on a day other than Saturday makes me "moderate," and if thinking "errant or inerrant" are inappropriate categories to describe the Bible's poetry and parables and psalms makes me "progressive," and if thinking capital punishment is still a good and biblical idea makes me a "conservative," then I guess I'm content in my inconsistency.

But I love the conversation this will generate.

Your conservative progressive moderate,
Jarrod

how can i take the quiz?

I have not seen the quiz, but can only comment based on this article.

It seems to me that the quiz is profoundly flawed. First, breaking people into those three categories is practically worthless. Hermeneutic decisions should not be categorized in this way.

What is "progressive" about supporting women in ministry, for instance? In my opinion, this is just plain Gospel stuff, not progressive or conservative or moderate.

Or the "command to destroy a village" question, which leaves off a God-centered answer such as "God caused it, and since He determines what is good, it is good; even though I personally don't like it." I believe that this is the answer, but none of those given bear any resemblance to this. Even the "conservative" answer is humanistic: I can justify it because the people were bad? So NOT the issue.

Oh well, yet another example of how we try to put everyone in their little box.

I am struck by David Fitch's response to his score and the description assigned to his score. He protests the progressive (Liberal) label (Why is it that liberals always protest the label?) and then goes on to describe a liberal philosophy of exegesis.

When Fitch says, "plain meaning is best preserved through the ongoing community of the church carrying out its apostolic task to faithfully transmit the gospel both in the community's preaching and its living." He, in so many words, is describing the Emergent conversation.

Thomas+
No, of course, "boxes" aren't a perfect fit for anyone's situation, but I really like McKnight's attempt to identify patterns in the diverse ways we interpret the Bible. He's trying to connect dots. Dots being the ways we interpret different biblical instructions.

Maybe "conservative" and "progressive" aren't the perfect words, but whatever you call them, the types of interpretation represented by those different dot-patterns are significantly distinct.

Joe:
Right now, the only way to take the quiz is to click on the Leadership journal button for the risk-free subscription. It will arrive in your mail box in a couple weeks.

We do hope to get an electronic, interactive version of the quiz online, but it will take a while.

I hope this helps.

Thomas wrote:
“… the "command to destroy a village" question, which leaves off a God-centered answer such as "God caused it, and since He determines what is good, it is good; even though I personally don't like it." I believe that this is the answer, but none of those given bear any resemblance to this. Even the "conservative" answer is humanistic: I can justify it because the people were bad? So NOT the issue."

And I guess if someone said, "God told us to fly airplanes into buildings," it would be good too, right?

Come on, friend, wrestle with the issues rather than resorting to scriptural passivity. A couple of points that color this particular instance:

1.) People always interpret God's will through their own subjective lens. This in itself can, and always does, to some extent, corrupt the original intention.

2.) We need to interpret the described actions and will of God in Scripture from within a consistent overall view of His nature.

Your response to the "destroy the village" issue takes neither of these issues into account.

I may be getting the buggy before the horse since I've not taken the quiz, but the limited descriptive options seem like blunt tools. Can we really divide Christian interpretation into conservative, moderate, or progressive? This sound more like modern political categories than hermeneutical frames of mind. Where would Augustine or Tertullian or Origen fall on this list? The most helpful stimulants to my own thinking on biblical interpretation force me to engage the whole Church not only through space (America, Europe, Africa, etc.) but also through time.

A parting question: what's the point of the survey?

Casey Taylor
irregularchristian.blogspot.com

Maybe I missed something, but you haven't asked me any questions yet!

Sadly, Mr. McKnight has weighted the answers to his brand of liberal interpretation. I couldn't answer any of the three sample questions since there was no "D. None of the above", or maybe more enjoyably, "D. All three above are bogus".

The quiz is purposely geared to push people into narrow confines away from the heart and soul of scriptures, which is to reveal Christ.

this one has been fun. i mean, first, we take a test to evaluate our opinions of the meanings of certain scriptures.

then, a few test takers give their opinions on how the test evaluated their opinions of the meanings of certain scriptures.

next, we come to the comments section where readers give their opinions on the test takers' opinions on how the test evaluated their opinions of the meanings of certain scriptures.

and then, within the comments, some give their opinions on other readers' opinions on the test takers' opinions on how the test evaluated their opinions of the meanings of certain scriptures.

voila, biblical interpretation in a nutshell. when, in the end, the very object of interest contains (in my opinion) many opinions of its authors as well.

"we don't really worry so much about (denominations / theology / religion / liberal or conservative / red or blue state / Republican or Democrat / Patriots or Giants) - we just preach the Word of God."

well, of course you do.

by the way - it seems my quiz score of 666 fell a little outside of the acceptable range - can someone help me with that?...

So Jeff, you honestly go to bed at night believing that you see the Scriptures as they plainly are, while "liberals" like Scot McKnight color everything to favor their particular stance?

Come on man, who do you think you're fooling? Calling Scot a "liberal" gives your hermeneutical bias away like a bull in a china shop.

I think the quiz is one of those "social icebreaker" things that pulls together a disparate group of people (gee, wonder if the Church fits that category), presents them with a series of questions/statements and then everyone gets to pitch in their thoughts/ideas/comments.
Thus, OMG! a real conversation starts. Imagine that, a new concept for all of us to consider, but'cha know, it could be great way for people to take a second look at themselves, and who knows...an epiphany could happen in the American church...you know, perhaps we'll all move beyond this stupid and asinine spiritual "Liberal/Moderate/Conservative" faux groupings we've herded everyone into.

Wouldn't that be a glorius day in the kingdom of G-d!

"An unexamined spiritual life isn't worth living, much less talking about."
Sheerahkahn

here's a question that went through my mind this morning related to this topic.

i've mentioned here before that i've been attending a whizbang-five-video-screens-emotive-closed-eyes-in-ecstasy-or-on-ecstacy-worship-team church for a bit. denominationally, it's AoG. sermon topic this past week was my favorite subject, hell. primary sermon text was the (pick one: parable / historical account) of lazarus and the rich man.

the pastor said it was historical, and gave us seven (SEVEN! whatever happened to THREE?) points on what hell is like based on what Jesus said.

i sent him an email - rather, i sent his assistant an email - on Monday and asked if i could come in and discuss the sermon with him, because i saw the account as a PARABLE, a not so subtle dig (and Jesus was a master at this) at the pharisees and our-poop-don't-stink israel. in short, his assistant said he didn't have time to debate every topic on which differences exist, and he believed God had given him what to say on Sunday.

maybe you see where i'm heading.

what does it say if legitimately honest, caring, concerned-about-the-truth men and women come to different what-they-believe-to-be-Holy-Spirit-inspired takes on scripture? this church starts its service with prayer for OTHER churches meeting Sunday morning, asking God to bless their efforts today - many of which no doubt have much different hermeneutical approaches than your typical AoG pastor has.

shouldn't this make some of you back off your sola scripture stance?

(btw, today is national string-together-words-with-hyphens-day... remember-to-practice-safe-hyphens.)

Question:
Your team prays before the big game. The other team prays before the big game. You have home field advantage and a teammate had died earlier in the year due to a drunk driving accident. The other team mercilessly defeats your team. Oh, and the coach was the driver who killed the teammate, a 16-year-old kid.

Choices:
A. G-d did not answer your team's prayers.
B. G-d answered the other team's prayers.
C. G-d doesn't care about football.
D. G-d works things out for an eventual better and higher purpose that we really don't understand. And G-d really doesn't care about football.

The quiz seems flawed by a bias in the wording of questions, answer selections, and the scoring methodology. Conflicting comments like the responses of January 22 are an inevitable result, which may be the real purpose. Controversy is a staple of the media business, and theological insight is likely less important to the author or publisher. Answers of 2 or 4 tend to normalize responses, but do not reflect directly upon the questions. The response of Sara [2/19/08] is a good example. While they may be interesting exercises, it should not be confused with any accurate assessment, or statistically significant indications.

My score of 39 placed me squarely as a conservative on The Hermeneutical Scale. I wasn't surprised. I have always thought myself to be conservative when it comes to hermeneutics. If I gave a bit more thoughts to the questions, I would probably have a score of between 45 and 55 - still somewhat a conservative!

Even though I scored as a conservative and consider myself one, I didn't agree with any of the answers on some of these questions and in actuallity had to lie. Can that be accurate? I think not. Maybe that is why some of the results for others were so surprising.

I scored as a conservative (36) but do have a question concerning the Sabbath, which was one of my more progressive answers. To wit, how did Friday evening to Saturday evening become the Sabbath? I have not found any Bible, Torah, etc., that says that the first day was Sunday, the second Monday, etc. So, how did the days get set? Have I missed a teaching here somewhere or are we using tradition to set the day?

Jon

I think some of the questions on the quiz were somewhat biased as to their answers. Number 20 in particular didn't have any answers that I fully agree with. I'm not even in between any of those answers. Sabbath is something that should be practiced by believers today. That option then in quotes had (on Saturday), which makes that part something that I don't agree with. I think in today's culture, sabbath rest doesn't have to be on a specific day. It could be Thursday or Friday or whenever. Jesus says that the Sabbath was made for man and not the man for Sabbath. His goal for the sabbath is that his followers experience sabbath rest. I'm not so sure that he's so concerned if it's on Saturday or on a Sunday.

This is just one of the examples of how I'm not sure this is an accurate quiz. I think it's a quiz that shows how much like the author of the quiz we are...

I think that many of youare missing the point. The quiz is personal... its not intended to publish your findings for OTHERS to judge. It is for you to take a look at how you read and interprate Scripture. Even the labels are an necessary evil... I get the feeling that most of you would rather be called a Conservative because that sounds more holy...(this is somewhat Pharisaical to me, but) call yourself a pink elephant for all I care... its how you treat Scripture that this quiz is all about. The real question to ask yourself after taking the test is, "Do I like the way I treat the Scriptures?" not "Do I like the label this quize gave me?"

I liked the quiz... even the questions that I struggled to answer because MY answer wasn't exactly one of the options. Why? Because it made me look at how I treat the Scriptures. As a Pastor, teacher, theologian, and Christ-follower... I need to examine this. Thanks Mr. McKnight.

I scored 55. What a tool to help leadership get thinking about how to work together in our similarities and differences. I will be giving this to all my leadership team.
Thanks!

Let me begin by saying I scored a 45 which was no surprise that I fell into the conservative range. I am also not offended by that lable or nor concerned with the categories. What the test does for me is it causes me to ask "Am I consistent in my hermeneutics?" If I hold that prohibitions on homosexuality are normative(and I do)but say that "women teaching men in the church" is cultural, am I being hermenutically consistent?

The questions may be limited or even biased but the accompanying article stated that Scot was confused at the positions his friend held- when to observe the sabbath/use of capital punishment. I think the quiz is an attempt to search for consistency in our hermenutics, and to challenge us in the limited 20 question on our inconsistency.

As a 17 year x-Adventist minister, presently a member of the Willow Creek community church, I read with interest the comments regarding the Sabbath as a test question regarding a conservative to liberal tag. As a Christian it seems to me it is much more important to determine how the apostles of our Lord interpreted the O.T. First "tag" the apostles in the spectrum and follow their lead. Consider first their application of circumcision, poligamy, and slavery laws. It would obviously be a faulty hermanutic to insist that because it was commanded by God in the O.T. it is incumbant on Christians to behave in the same manner. Wrestle with how Paul could assert "Circumcision is nothing" when Genesis 17 says God commanded Abraham to circumcise everyone in his household -even servants- for them to remain part of the family. Wrestle with Isaiah 52 - a Messianic prophecy which says that no one who is uncircumcised or unclean should be allowed in the city of Jerusalem in the Messianic age. Yet it is the same God (our Lord Jesus) who instructed Peter to not call "unclean" what the Lord has cleansed. Barnabas and Paul under Peter's instruction evangelized the Gentiles and added them to the church (i.e. the household of Abraham)without circumcision or observance of the law.
The Sabbath law commands the Israelites to allow their "manservants and maidservants" to observe the Sabbath. Servatude is presumed yet the New Testament sets the church on the path of breaking that institution, just as it did poligamy. Paul's instruction regarding the marital status of those who would desire to be servants of the church eventually became normative for the whole church. Unfortunately it took several more centuries for the church to tackle the issue of slavery. Abolition, a liberal Republican cause indeed in the 1860s, grew out of a practical application the gospel of our Lord concerning "Christian freedom." The human trade that was happening all across the South, became the focus of Christian sermons which eventually gave birth to the Republican party. Paul's counsel to Onesimus to obtain his freedom if he could finally became the voice of the church on this issue in the North. Most Christians (both north and south)today would contend that holding slaves would be an immoral act even though the O.T. permitted it and regulated it my law, and the New Testament promoted freedom but never labeled the practice as immoral.
Finally, the labels of Conservative and liberal are very relative terms. Abolition surely was a liberal cause in the 1860s but is a very conservative issue today. Even today's "liberals" would like to conserve it. But all "liberal causes" are not necessarily righteous causes.
Obviously we have no Scripture mandating our moral sensibilities about slavery but we do have in Scriptue a sense of where the Spirit of Christ was leading the Church.

My score of 52 really didn't mean much to me because as others noted, there really was no "spot" for their view in some of the questions. I struggle with the destruction of the villages, but more how G_d could ask Abraham to kill his son on an alter when murder was wrong even during that time. Then we get to the New Testament and G_d allows His Son to be killed in the most qrotesque way. The point being if His Son was not willing to give His life, we (the human race) would all perish forever. The fate of the entire human race hangs in the balance of one Man's (human) choice to do or not to do the Father's will. Are you not glad He chose to do the Father's will!!! Life can be bloody and gory, but when the storm is over, how wonderful is the peace and quietness and how exciting is the prospect of Eternity with Him.

The point is not to compare yourself with another. Nor is it to agree or disagree with a labeling, but instead...think. I've been a Christian for 15 years, but I've never stopped to consider some of these issues...how do I interpret the Bible on capital punishment and whether or not I should be allowed to braid my hair? Can I say that the death penalty is wrong, but it's okay for me to braid my hair and where gold? where is that line drawn? And am I inserting too much bias when I say the Sabbath isn't about Saturday or Sunday, but physical and spiritual recuperation from the previous week's trials (usually leading to doing homework on Sunday) I don't know what's right and what's not. But I don't believe that's the point, I realize now that these are questions I need to answer, so instead of wasting time condemning the author of the quiz for limiting labels, I'm going to examine the scripture, and my heart.

I thought the test was a bit on the gray side. Some of the answers given were not completely one way or another to me. However I scored where I thought I would. I'm a conservative. I'm a pastor of a small nondenominational church and I was reading through some of the comments and I was surprised at the apparent lack of basic biblical understanding. Any approach to studying the Bible should be one that will allow you to work with in a frame work of consistency.

The Bible can not mean today what it never meant before. We apply it today with an understanding of what it meant to the people it was directly written to within the context of the historical background and within the context of what is written. I guess that's what happens when you attend a seminary and study the Bible as God's word and not look at it as God's message hidden in the writings of some guys from a long time a go. I guess I could understand if I skipped school.

The Holy Spirit have been my guidance since I gave myself to the Lord through the guidence of Jesus who DIED for my terrible sins of the past and the future

This is an interesting quiz. I was not too surprised to test as a conserative, but I was surprised that my wife scored higher then I did. However, I imagine that many fellow conseratives would consider me to be very liberal anyway.

Andrew - you are exactly right. This test is not about what everyone thinks of you or how you have been labeled. It is really more of a way to assess how you interpret scripture and to make you think about yourself.
I see it already happening at the next leadership conference we will have to bring in counselors to help those of us who have been labeled get over our labels.
Let's use the test as a measure and get back to interpreting scripture and letting God use us to touch the lives of people who are trying to walk with Jesus.

Haha to David's comment!

I love the way that people's comments are in line with their 'categories' - the 'moderates' are encouraging calm, the 'liberals' are open-minded and the 'conservatives' are offended at being categorized!! We are such funny creatures.

I found this test so useful. I grew up as a 5th Generation Pentecostal PK, and I am now a lay leader within an "Empowered" Baptist church (we too avoid the 'label' of 'Charismatic'). Very different traditions, with very different ways of interpreting Scripture. I am sure that my answers five years ago would have differed vastly from my answers today.

I loved Elizabeth's comment: "instead of wasting time condemning the author of the quiz for limiting labels, I'm going to examine the scripture, and my heart." May we all do likewise.

I love question #10. The most conservative answer is the most individualistic, the most liberal answer is the most communitarian. In my own denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, the more moderate/liberal element would answer with the most conservative answer on this one. Conversely the conservative/fundamentalist elements would be more likely to give a more liberal answer. Kind of funny.

I should point out that I answered #3 on question 10 giving me a moderate answer no matter how you look at it. I scored 59 overall.

I scored in the middle 20's. I think you're treading on dangerous waters when you start viewing the Bible, God's word, as moderate or progressive in light of the increasingly diluted society in which we live because you could say you're giving the society the interpretation that they want to hear. God never changes...He is inerrant and righteous...and the intrepretation of His Word should not either.