How do you read the bible: ‘The Hermeneutics Quiz’
28 Feb 2008
I scored 88 out 100, on this Scott McKnight quiz which makes me a ‘progressive’ when it comes to how I interpret the bible. Given the lively discussion on universalism below, with our three guest authors, and the different views in their and your comments, this might be enlightening as to why.
You can take it online here.
The quiz is introduced with this:
‘Ever wonder how two people can look at the same passage of the Bible and come away with such different applications? The ways we interpret the Bible, and what enters into our process of applying the Bible, are important for us to be aware of. Without this self-awareness, we can have blind spots in our Bible reading and not even know it.’
Tagged: Bible, Hermeneutics
31 comments
Trackback
Comment by marc
1.39 pm on 28 Feb 2008
I scored 57
The moderate hermeneutic might be seen as the voice of reason and open-mindedness. Moderates generally score between 53 to 65…
Reply to this comment
Comment by Mark Heath
1.59 pm on 28 Feb 2008
I got 52, just missing out on being “the voice of reason and open-mindedness”. Guess that makes me one of those ignorant closed-minded fundamentalists then ;) …
Reply to this comment
Comment by gareth
2.04 pm on 28 Feb 2008
ummm scored 96 – wish getting high ‘marks’ was as easy in essays ;-)
Reply to this comment
Comment by Brandon Vaughn
5.49 pm on 28 Feb 2008
I was a 48 … conservative. And just to think, you might mistake me for a flaming liberal based on my posts. :)
Some of the questions were bad though … like the “Sabbath” question. I believe the Sabbath was a symbol of something greater … Jesus. To me, Jesus is our Sabbath, and He is the fulfillment of that. That wasn’t one of the answers. :)
Reply to this comment
Comment by Ruth Stacey
11.11 pm on 28 Feb 2008
I scored 70, not sure the word ‘progressive’ is one that feels like i fits, but I guess it’s not bad?!
Ruth
Reply to this comment
Comment by Paul
11.31 pm on 28 Feb 2008
funnily enuff i was a progressive too :)
Reply to this comment
Comment by brett jordan
10.02 am on 29 Feb 2008
hey, who’d have thought… i’m a moderate!
the quiz must be wrong :-)
Reply to this comment
Comment by Katharine Moody
2.45 pm on 29 Feb 2008
85 – progressive.
Has anyone else read Gordon Lynch’s study of the ‘progressive milieu’ and ‘progressive spirituality’? It’s called The New Spirituality, and has been formative for me concerning how I approach the emerging church as a milieu. It has it’s flaws – principally labelling what he says is only one spirituality that emerges from the progressive milieu AS progressive, thus seemingly labelling it as either more pervasive or more preferable to other possible spiritualities – but generally it’s a very informative read.
I wonder if we could come up with another quiz which determines the hermeneutical scale upon which readers of the “How do you read the Bible” quiz read the quiz questions!!!!
Reply to this comment
Comment by Katharine Moody
2.52 pm on 29 Feb 2008
Gordon Lynch’s criteria for inclusion in the progressive MILIEU are as follows:
1. “sympathetic to core values of liberal democracy (for example, tolerance, autonomy, diversity)
2. “have green or left-wing political attitudes (for example, are concerned with environmentalism, social justice, civil rights)
OR
3. “hold liberal or radical theological views (for example, are willing to revise religious tradition in the light of contemporary knowledge, are sympathetic to feminist critiques of organized religion, and/or believe that there is a truth inherent in all religious traditions).”
His criteria for inclusion in progressive SPIRITUALITY are:
1. “a belief in the immanent divine unity which nurtures and sustains the unfolding cosmos;
2. the sacralization of nature;
3. the sacralization of the self;
4. and a belief tha these spiritual truths can be discerned within and beyond different religious traditions.” (Lynch, 2007:98).
I thought these points might stimulate a debate among those whom the quiz categorised as “progressive,” as to whether or not Lynch and McKnight are using “progressive” in the same way.
How do those who were identified as “progressive” relate to Lynch’s criteria above?
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason
6.51 pm on 29 Feb 2008
Hi Katharine,
I found the test to be fun, and of course based on Scott McKnight’s placement/definition’s.
Tests based around different criteria might yield some very different results.
Maybe you could make a quiz based on Gordon Lynch for comparison? :-)
Reply to this comment
Comment by Katharine Moody
1.43 pm on 1 Mar 2008
A fantastic idea! Not sure I have the IT skills – but I reckon I could do it on Facebook! I’ll have to think about that!
Reply to this comment
Comment by Peter
7.02 pm on 29 Feb 2008
Hi Jason,
following behind you at 79. But perhaps I was too cautious because I did not catch all the semantic nuances in Scot’s text.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Rachel
7.42 pm on 29 Feb 2008
78. I tend to lean conservative politically, but if I’m a hermenutical progressive, great! :)
Reply to this comment
Comment by Laura
9.03 pm on 29 Feb 2008
43…just a bit conservative :-)
The quiz seems mostly accurate, nuance aside.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Adrian Roberts
12.51 am on 2 Mar 2008
I scored 79, making me a progressive.
A possible flaw here is that since I like to think of myself as progressive, I wonder if that skewed my answers.
And, I almost never answered with a 1,3, or 5 – I nearly always went for the 2 or 4. Am I post-modern, or just indecisive, or are these the same thing?!
Reply to this comment
Comment by Laura Anne
3.24 pm on 2 Mar 2008
I scored 50, making me a Conservative.
I think the quiz isn’t very good though – so full of jargon, and didn’t understand what half the possible answers were trying to get at. A few I needed ’secret option number 6′.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Ally
5.37 pm on 2 Mar 2008
I scored 83.
Did anyone else hear the voices in their heads arguing?
I had three at various times, one called ’should’, another called ‘could’ and the third was the one that ‘knew’ what was right!!
:)
Really comfortable with the result though ;)
Reply to this comment
Comment by Adrian Roberts
12.39 am on 3 Mar 2008
With reference to McKnight’s comment that Conservative Evangelicals are rarely completely consistent:
“….The problem, of course, is that very few people are completely consistent here. At times one suspects something other than strict interpretation is going on when the conservative is willing to appeal to history to suspend the commandment to observe a Saturday Sabbath, but does not to appeal to history on other issues (e.g., capital punishment or homosexuality)….”
I’v always noticed that they are quick to apply a literal interpretation to the scriptures that apparently condemn homosexuality, whereas scriptures such as “woman should not speak in church” or “women should cover their heads in church” are explained away as relevant only for the cultures of the time. They then forget that the cultural argument is precisely how the Gay Christians defend their position. The Roman Catholics and Plymouth Brethren are at least consistent here!
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jonny
12.45 pm on 3 Mar 2008
i scored 66 – so progressive also.
I found it a fascinating test – very cleverly structured – really got me thinking through some of my presumptions.
thanks for the heads up.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Pratt
10.39 pm on 3 Mar 2008
Heh. I scored 51. Why am I not surprised…? {g}
Though I might have scored a touch higher or lower had I found answers on three or four questions that actually reflected what I thought.
JRP
Reply to this comment
Comment by Josh Heilman
12.27 am on 4 Mar 2008
I scored 79. Lot’s of 4’s like many of you mentioned. I’m wondering if it’s a post-modern bent (thanks, Adrian) that wants to ask questions and avoid being pigeonholed…probably. But is that all wrong?
Reply to this comment
Comment by Dean Whisnant
3.23 am on 4 Mar 2008
I thought I would have ended up in a bit more moderate of a position, but surprisingly I ended up on the far edge of progressive with a 92.
I spoke very progressively from the book of Galatians yesterday and the congregation that is much more conservative )or on that end of moderate) responded quite well (or maybe I should say they didn’t react negatively). Hmm, maybe there are more people who might fall in lower scores on the quiz, but in practice believe much different when they hear the words in a progressive (but not anti-conservative) tone.
Peace!
Dean
Reply to this comment
Comment by mlink
10.18 am on 10 Mar 2008
Hi Dean,
Can you give me an idea of what you said in your progressive sermon on Galatians and how this might differ from a conservative sermon?
Best,
Martyn
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Reid
2.23 pm on 4 Mar 2008
Conservative – oh well, I’ll get my cloak…
Reply to this comment
Comment by Dean Whisnant
8.11 pm on 4 Mar 2008
“Cloaks”? Did someone say cloaks? See, we progressives (I don’t like the term but will use it for this article) and conservatives do have some (odd) things in common.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Alan
11.54 pm on 5 Mar 2008
I scored 70, a bit lower than I would have expected but not very long ago I might have been around 50! Interesting test. I’ll follow the blogs with great interest.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Alan
11.54 pm on 5 Mar 2008
I scored 70, a bit lower than I would have expected but not very long ago I might have been around 50! Interesting test. I’ll follow the blogs with great interest.
Reply to this comment
Comment by yoeshka
2.59 am on 8 Mar 2008
I scored a 42. Am I allowed to continue reading this blog?
Reply to this comment
Comment by Paul
7.59 pm on 13 Mar 2008
of course, we set the bar very low around here ;)
Reply to this comment
Comment by Dawn Wessel
6.49 pm on 15 Feb 2009
By using the repetitive-conjunctive method I’ve discovered the following, among other things:
Evolution says that life came from the ‘primordial soup (mud)’ and the Bible says something similar:
“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.” (Gen. 2:7)
Dust (as powdered or gray; hence clay, earth, mud:-ashes, earth, ground, mortar, powder, rubbish) ‘of the ground (soil – from its gen. redness).
1. When used in association with the feminine noun אדמה adamah = ground/dirt, the masculine noun עפר ‘apar means: dry earth/dirt, dust, dry loose earth/dirt. The operative word in the definition of עפר ‘apar is “dry”. The Strong’s Heb./Chaldee Dictionary of the Old Testament shows the verb root for the masculine noun עפר ‘apar to be עפר meaning: to be gray or pulverized, but nowhere does the BDB, Strong’s, or Gesenius Heb./Chaldee Lexicon show the Hebrew masculine noun עפר ‘apar as being associated with “red” or as being synonymous with “mud” or “clay” of the אדמה adamah = ground/dirt.
Mr. Darwin said that human beings came from the primates, and the Bible, again, leads in the same direction:
(Genesis) Adam/man (Hebrew-synonyms) = ‘ruddy (red)’, rosy, the flush of blood
“…man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7b):
soul (Hebrew & Greek) = breathing creature/the animal sentiment principal only
1. ha’adam=“the human archetype” was initially created as a נפשׁ
חיה “breathing brute animal” in Genesis 2:7, with little or no difference
between it and the brute animal נפשׁ חיה “breathing brute animals”
created in Genesis 2:19.11
- does not suggest a ‘human’ being but rather a ‘ruddy (brute animal)’ creature (as coming from the ‘red’ earth – dust/dry ground)
“Prior to being put into the garden, ruddy did not have ’spiritual’ ability, he only gained that after he entered the garden; ‘…and the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man (ruddy) whom he had made.” (parentheses mine, Gen. 2:8 & 15)
So then, Adam/man was not initially a ‘human’ being as many believe but rather a ‘ruddy creature of earth’, an animal (must have been a chimpanzee because somewhere along the line we gained 97% chimp DNA).
It was the gaining of this other element that enabled one primate to change from animal to human, and unless he had gained it, could not have changed – thus the reason we don’t see other primates in various stages of change.
Religious tendencies are observed strictly in the human species. If human beings are in part ‘soul (animal)’ then why aren’t such tendencies evident in primates? Could it be because we have something the other animals don’t have?
soul = mortal
spirit = immortal
animal = soul
human being = soul + spirit (aura, metaphysical, God’s image, sixth sense, etc.)
One cannot interpret the Bible in chronological order, that only causes confusion. ‘The woman/wife’ was only created ‘after Adam entered the garden’. So then, the verses which include her (Gen. 1:26-28) occurred ‘after’ Gen. 2:7 & 15 (man is alone) – proof positive that you cannot interpret chronologically.
Reply to this comment
Comment by 1004
2.33 pm on 22 Oct 2009
Sarah Palin would make an excellent common sense president who would understand the working class and America’s most important issues. ,
Reply to this comment