I scored a 32 on part one and a 42 on part two, which combined put me in the "Private Patriot" quadrant and near the center of the whole thing.

I think this is a good assessment, though some of the questions show an obvious bent on the part of the author of the quiz, but all in all this was a fun thing to take. I do wish we would drop the theocrat language though, even if it's in jest, because I would be amazed if their is a single well-minded Christian in this country who expects or wants a theocracy, and I can't believe anyone would think that this can be accomplished regardless of what they want. Instead this just becomes another word like "fundamentalist" which has no meaning in its use and is being tossed around to demonize people on the right, which seems like hypocrisy in the ripest sense.

I thought the reading suggestions were nice. If I could make a reading suggestion myself, I would recommend Is God on America's Side? by Erwin Lutzer. It is probably the most balanced and biblically-sober book on a Christian's role in American politics that I have ever read.

Nice post.

27 in Part 1 and 27 in Part 2. Makes me a Quiet Critic, though close to the edge in both axes. This was an interesting exercise, but I was uncomfortable with some questions because none of the responses reflected my views. Therefore, since I had to choose from what was given, the results are distorted from my personal views. Unless, that is, I really don't know myself as well as I like to think. Hmmm...

I scored a 33 on part 1 and a 31 on part 2, making me a Quiet Critic. I suppose that is accurate. I do think Christians should be Salt and Light to the world and so therefore must engage the culture to some extent. But I have no illusions that America is or ever was a Christian country, nor do I think it is part of the call of the Gospel to use political means to spread the Kingdom. Also, I don't care for the victim mentality that some Christians sometimes take. I do not deny that there are things in the culture that are distressing and perhaps even amount to persecution, but we should expect nothing less from the world. Our response to adversity should be dignified and confident in the Lord's plan, not fearful or petulant.

By the by, some of those questions had no answer with which I could fully agree - such as the question about how I feel when I hear politicians use biblical language. It all depends on how they use it and who is using it.

I've always loved these little quizzy things. They are great fun and I'm always on pins and needles to find out where I fall on the chart. Bummer of bummers, I'm smack dab in the middle of the axis on both the vertical and horizontal. Mike will never believe it.

Part One: 21
Part Two: 29

Humph...I personally am a little to vocal for my pastorate in regards to the subject of Church and state, but thats just me.

"I would be amazed if their is a single well-minded Christian in this country who expects or wants a theocracy,..."

then prepare to be amazed...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Weyrich

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_Foundation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism

I'm using wiki because its easier, and I'm at work, so I don't have all my bookmarks here with me. But there are links that take you to the sites.
Christian Reconstructionism is another term you should throw into your vocab.
Perhaps OoU can do a research topic on it since the teachings of this doctrine are seeping into the churches, no matter what the denomination is... parts of it is even being taught/practiced in my church, I'm sad to say.

I scored as a Quiet Critic. I think the word theocrat is like fundamentalist, in that it means two very different things to the world and to certain segments of Christianity. Theocrats do exist however, mainly in groups that promote a stong Christian Reconstruction/Kingdom Now agenda.

I found this quiz frustrating to take. For example:
The church should focus on:
Rescuing individuals out of a fallen society? Yes.
Being an alternative culture amid the fallen society? Yes.
Transforming society to reflect God's values? Yes.

Yet the quiz puts these statements in a continuum. My thinking is that by calling individuals from their fallen society into the life of the people of God, the Church--the community of God's people--transform society. Yes to all three.

Or another example:
If teaching from Romans 13, I would emphasize that the government:
-Is accountable to God and under his judgment. Yes.
-Is necessary to restrain evil in a fallen world. Yes.
-Is an instrument of God's mission in the world. Yes.

Now, government is not THE instrument of God's mission, and God can often use governments for his purpose while they sit in his judgment. (See Babylon in Isaiah as an example.)

I ended up a Radical Reformer, but just barely. I entirely reject the trend toward anarchism I see in some Christian activists, as noble as their intentions may be. Yet I also am suspicious of the faith in government that both conservatives and progressives seem to have. I want to engage the political process, but not trust it. I want to call our society to account, but not condemn it.

part one: 34
part two: 27

Quiet critic. But I'm not usually so quiet. Definitely a critic.

what's even harder to believe, melody, is that i'm right there with you... :)

opposites attract, as they say, even if we only come kicking and screaming.

i do edge a little northward along the y-axis into the reformer/theocrat half of the circle which, given how i bad-mouth the reformers and theocrats on this blog, is probably just desserts in some weird way. just don't accuse me of being a closet calvinist...

my impression as i read the questions is that they didn't seem to be skewed consistently: some of the 5s i thought should be 1s and vice versa to paint the figures they were looking for.

i guess - perhaps like sheerahkhan - what frightens me more than the church wanting its laws written into the government's is when the church attempts to identify governments as 'good' and 'evil' and assign them roles in a revelation-esque anti-passion play. the pro-israel crowd, the tri-lateral commission and federal reserve people, and the ready-for-rapture readers frighten me more than the evangelical nationalists.

but i guess that's like choosing between being bitten by a german shepherd or a doberman...

I scored a 26 on part I and a 24 on part II. Like some previous commenters, I thought some of the questions posed a false dichotomy but the resulting characterization, "Quiet Critic", probably fits me quite well.

I was disappointed, however, that the 2 works that were most influential in the development of my ideas about the relationship between government/politics and Christianity/church were not on the "Books for Quiet Critics" list that came up at the end.

For anyone who's interested, I highly recommend Leonard Verduin's 'Anatomy of a Hybrid' and 'The Search for Christian America' by Noll, Hatch and Marsden.

I scored 37/30, which nudges me over to Radical Reformer. I'm more comfortable viewing myself as a Quiet Critic... but the numbers suggest otherwise.

sheerahkahn,
I thank you for these links, but I think what you have shown is exactly the misconstrual of this idea which I was talking about. There is the utmost difference between wanting a theocracy where God or an incarnate representative of him is the ruler of the state, and dominionism and Christian reconstructionism where a person/group expresses desires to have national law reflect a religious law. This is the difference between having a state like the Vatican which is ruled by "Christ's representative on the earth" (i.e. the Pope) versus a state which is governed by the Levitical law imposed by democratically elected officials. Using religious laws as the laws of the state isn't the same thing as the state recognizing "God" as the supreme civil ruler.

Look at it this way: an alleged theocrat wants abortion banned because they feel like this is the right law and they base this claim upon their belief in the Bible. Another politician wants abortions to be free and available to all who desire them and they base this claim upon a belief in some philosophy espousing reproductive freedoms or what not. The only difference between the two individuals views is that one is a "religious" belief whereas the other would be considered a social philosophy, but honestly, aren't they both just worldviews? Yet we try to demonize the "Christian" worldview just because it offends our "unbiased and intelligent" humanist ideas.

todd, i think the bigger issue is that a lot of evangelicals who are so caught up in a couple of issues (namely abortion and gay rights) think a simple OT-like law is the answer to the problem. paul himself told us that the law could never accomplish changes in the heart of man. it's not which side of the issue either individual is on that bothers me; what bothers me is the pharisaical attitude of throwing a law at someone to (a) attempt to solve the real problem, and (b) subtly promote one's own righteousness.

where is the same outcry about gluttony? paul mentions it. more people in america are overweight than have abortions. what about being disobedient to parents? paul mentions that, too. i know with almost certainty there are three teenagers under my own roof who will not be entering the kingdom of heaven. :)

further, it's the demonizing of the other side - we've mentioned it here in a lot of posts lately. one side says God is on their side, leaving the other with last pick on the playground.

what should drive the solution is the desired goal.

21 and 21, which puts me squarely in the cwntwr of quiet critic. A misread since I am anything but quiet.

The problem with this little assessment is a matter of perspective. I am sure most approach it viewing the Church from the perspective of infrastructure and beureaucracy. I think the proudcer of the quiz produced it from that perspective as well.

I approached it viewing the church as the individuals who make up the Body of Christ. That perspective totally changes how one interprets the questions and the answers.

Todd,

Yes, it does all boil down to worldviews. But government should reflect the views that represent the majority, without unduly infringing on the rights of minorities within the whole.

Few people are saying Christianity is silly while secular humanism is unbiased. By definition a worldview must have bias. But the bias should be in favor of the views of the majority of the population.

Todd,
You state:
“There is the utmost difference between wanting a theocracy where God or an incarnate representative of him is the ruler of the state, and dominionism and Christian reconstructionism where a person/group expresses desires to have national law reflect a religious law.”

I'm reading that you are saying that there exists a contrast between theocractic government and a state employing levitical law, and just for argument sake, lets define the term so we are both on the same page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

You continue with...

“This is the difference between having a state like the Vatican which is ruled by "Christ's representative on the earth" (i.e. the Pope) versus a state which is governed by the Levitical law imposed by democratically elected officials.”

Once again, just so we’re on the same page, lets define levitical law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviticus

I'm reading that you're saying there is an existential difference between “Christ representative on earth” and a state governed by Levitical law.

And finally,

“Using religious laws as the laws of the state isn't the same thing as the state recognizing "God" as the supreme civil ruler.”

Therefore, I'm reading that what you are saying in effect is that levitical laws are not divinely apportioned mandates of writ by a living G-d, and thus are arbitrarily definable and prosecutable by secular man, and the enforcement of said laws answerable to no one but man.

Do you wish to correct my reading of what you are saying?

Darren, if the "views of the majority of the population" allow the gassing of, let's say, Jews, or something like that, should one keep quiet so as not to seem like a theocrat? Oh yeah, church leaders did that already, bless them.

'Gluttony', on the other hand, is just too terrible to fit in anyone's worldview.

Darren,
Well, seeing as how roughly 75% of Americans claim to be some flavor of Christian it would seem that the majority bias should be towards biblical influence in government. Either that or there are a lot of people who aren't really what they say they are . . .

An interesting and fun exercise. I'd be interested to learn how the questions were developed. Although I might quibble with some of the wording, my outcome - Private Patriot - seems consistent with how I'd rate myself.

Here's a semi-relate thought since we're on the topic of political leanings - why are Republicans portrayed as red and Dems as blue? When I was in the military, the US and NATO forces (good guys) were always shown as blue on the maps, and the Warsaw Pact or aggressor forces (bad guys) were shown as red or orange. Perhaps a coincidence, but I always have that nagging question about whether the red/blue divide conveys a similar message.

"Either that or there are a lot of people who aren't really what they say they are . . ."

Well, considering that a lot of people say a lot of things, the best we can hope for is that they at least show up Sunday morning...of course, sitting in the cheer-leading section of the pew is no guarantee on ones eternal destination either.

Todd,

I agree that the majority of Christians claim a Christian perspective. But, as you know, that includes a wide variety of worldviews - even within the larger world of Christian belief. For instance, a Presbyterian is not going to necessarily have the same worldview as a Southern Baptist. The two can be quite different actually.

And Melody,

While incidents like the Nazis in Germany certainly exist in history, in general, people are protected from fanaticism when a larger, not a smaller, group of people is responsible for the direction of government.

Oops, that was supposed to read a majority of AMERICANS claim a Christian perspective...

Therefore, I'm reading that what you are saying in effect is that levitical laws are not divinely apportioned mandates of writ by a living G-d, and thus are arbitrarily definable and prosecutable by secular man, and the enforcement of said laws answerable to no one but man.

sheerahkahn,
No, I would disagree with that statement completely. The fundamental difference between theocracy and what these people are advocating is that the theocracy option is to appoint as the supreme civic leader (so, President) either God or a representative of God, whereas the other side is just to say "Jesus is Lord and our national laws should be informed by the Bible because it is the truth and the best way to live."

What groups like the Heritage Foundation and such are saying is that we should recognize that God rules over all (as in a mental assent to this) and as such we should strive to make our laws reflect his laws within the constructs of our democrat system.

I took this test twice, exchanging with 'what your church teaches' to what I personally believe. It changed my ranking from "Quiet Critic" to "Radical Reformer."

I don't agree with what my conservative church teaches in many cases with regard to doctrine or political policy. And they aren't engaged in the community -- just inside its own doors. There are other things I do agree with, which is why I attend. The big things.

I've never been an evangelical lemming, a religious-right theocrat, or a feel-good emergent. Just on the 'fringe,' as my pastor has lovingly labeled me. But the fringes are growing.

40 & 27 = radical reformer. That wasn't a surprise, but the questions were often hard to answer. "Little quizzy things" (which I do enjoy!) don't allow for nuance, for complex theology or specific practices. So I might be named a prophet or a mystic or an administrator, and it would all be true and false.

Okay, that was more postmodern than I intended.

i wanted to know whether a christian should involve himself in politics or not