The Hermeneutics Quiz

I got a 77, which I guess seems about right. I think I would have grown up as a 25 - 35.

68, and I'm a Southern Baptist minister...stupid me trying to be consistent with my ethic and the text.

I scored a 64 which put me on the high end of the moderate, close to progressive. I guess that's where I see myself, thinking I have a high view of Scripture, but also thinking that it all has to be taken in contexts to understand what it is saying as God's word for us today. Something like that.

But good questions, Scot, and a good little article.

When Skye Jethani (editor at Leadership) and I sat down, I knew there was no way to get nuance into this quiz -- so we sought for a conversation starter. There's an issue involved here at a level much deeper than most of us care to think ... namely, what we think we are doing when we read the Bible in order to bring it into our world. Most of us mix various strategies.

One of my deepest convictions is that the strategy of returning to the Bible in order to restore it in our world is not in fact what we are doing. Sometimes yes; othertimes, no. And my own work is about what we are actually doing.

After taking the test and learning my score (42), I was intrigued to find out that I was rendered conservative. I think that one of the reasons people might score a high number (being more progressive) might be the failure to learn (and implement) the historical-grammatical method of interpretation. In today's culture all to often we find a more subjective, existential manner of interpretation, that is, "to me it means..." While I grant a sensus plenior, and realize there are linguistic methods used (allegory, metaphor, figurative, etc.) But when the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, is there really any reason to seek a deeper (or more shallow) sense? For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. (1st Corinthians 14:33)

Interesting Scot - as a conversation starter or to provoke thought. Some caveats and criticisms if a "scientific evaluation tool." The sabbath question is particularly misleading.

I score in the progressive range - low 70's - honestly.

Gee - am I the only conservative here? I scored 50

#11 - I think that one of the reasons people might score a high number (being more progressive) might be the failure to learn (and implement) the historical-grammatical method of interpretation. In today’s culture all to often we find a more subjective, existential manner of interpretation, that is, “to me it means…” While I grant a sensus plenior, and realize there are linguistic methods used (allegory, metaphor, figurative, etc.) But when the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, is there really any reason to seek a deeper (or more shallow) sense?

Speaking as a "progressive" based on the test, I have some issues with your characterization. First, the historical-grammatical is one form of interpretive method, not the ONLY one. I would ask, did the NT authors employ this method when interpreting the OT? I would offer, no they didn't. Check out Peter Enns on this topic. Also, I don't fall to the side of "to me it means...". As a "progressive", I pay close attention to the historical and cultural situation that the Scriptures grew out of, and I take into account what the Church (historic and Global) views those Scriptures to mean. The "plain sense" often equates to "the plain sense for ME", and ME is a product of cultural conditioning, and all the biases and presuppositions that come with it.

I scored a 65,which didn't surprise me much, I didn't grow up much of anything, but when I became a Christian at 30, I would have probably been about a 20-25 if that would be a fundamental literalist view. WOW has college and blogs been a wonderful eye-opening, heart-softening experience.

Interesting quiz, Scot.

Andie

I've been reading a book on servant leadership and the author raises a very pertainent question that I think the post-moderan philosophers have sought to address. "Who pays the price of your interpretation?" (Servant Leadership, Volume One, page 117) The post moderan gang is sensitive to how scripture and the authority of the Bible has been used by unscrupulous leaders to power over others. Without the commununal study of the Bible, the church can fall into using the Bible to weild power for one's particular agenda be it slavery or the roles of men and women. That community needs to include those without social power so that the church might begin to overcome it's biasis and bring about true reconciliation between people.

I would like to see a critique of methods based on the redemptive gospel of Jesus Christ and the character of God as revealed in Jesus.

The question, who pays the price of your biblical interpretation is one to be pondered--be we conservative, moderate or progressive. If something doesn't jive with redemption... maybe we should question it.

Thanks for your comments, Scot. So is it progressive because it hopes to progress creation towards redemption? Is that the only sense in which it's being used?

Progress towards a definite goal or telos (even if it's the kingdom of God - which is defined within perimeters) seems to repeat a modernist assumption in progression to me.

I'd rather be cautious about what I'm praying for when (if!) I pray, "Your Kingdom come." The kingdom of God will blow these horizons of expectation apart! And THAT'S what I pray for - not a concept with definitive content. I pray to be changed, but I don't know how. I pray, but I don't know to whom.

What do I love when I love my God? God, rid me of God. God, why have you forsaken me?

Progress might happen in relation to these questions, but it won't be on my agenda!

72 here. Seems about right. I am a recent Fuller Seminary grad. As for the categories of "conservative" and "progressive" I'd much prefer stating four to five different hermeneutical methodologies and then contending that some are better than others. I consider myself to have a narrative hermeneutic and thus things can always be re-worked in light of new aspects of the narrative. Some have called this a "trajectory" or "arc" hermeneutic...

So, I am not sure what a 72 means but I take the Scriptural narrative seriously as authoritative and fruitful for guiding God's people towards faithfulness when interpreted in a community seeking to follow Jesus.

I thought the quiz was interesting and was glad that it was made available to those of us not subscribing to Leadership. I got a 58. I agree that it is possible that some moderates are picking and chosing their issues, but it is also possible moderates are choosing "3" more often :) On a number of questions I felt like the answers were trying to set up a polarity that I didn't agree with and felt that my place was really somewhere off that implied line--which made them hard to answer. Still, the basic question of how to think about the application of various directives from scripture is evergreen--and this quiz helps us face some of those issues in a fairly direct and "BS-free" manner. Thanks Scot!

Steve

Damian #11

You said : I think that one of the reasons people might score a high number (being more progressive) might be the failure to learn (and implement) the historical-grammatical method of interpretation.

And, in a sense, I think you're right...but for different reasons. I scored 77, not because I dont know the historical-grammatical method, but because I dont think its enough. It is helpful and gives us a lot of information, but for me, it doesnt get me any closer to the text, while more "reader based" methods do.

Scored a 75.. progressive (though low to mid range), no suprise there.

Thanks Scot, I like what you're doing here... My hermeneutics professor said sometimes it's worth looking through a deconstructive lense. In other words, we can tell what our/someone elses real (latent) hermeneutic is by the results... this is often different than the stated method or approach.

Though like some I'm not totally comfortable with the categories, still a great tool for evaluation... Look forward to someone addressing some of the questions hermeneutics is wrestling with (is this your new book?)...

For instance: The 'plain' sense(#11) of Scripture is hardly plain (as even the idea itself is a culturally conditioned Baconian philosophy), and... Almost everyone has a redemptive trajectory of some kind (otherwise most conservatives would still believe slavery is permited, which they don't :) ), it's just on a sliding scale that is maybe more cultural than anything else.

Scot - Thanks for this. It is a great tool to begin dialogue on see mental models and frameworks that drive our interpretations and applications of scripture. Though trained in seminary in the historical-grammatical method and know it well (Conservative Baptist seminary), it is not complete in it's challenging of our own cultural (western, in my case) mental models. We are clueless to the ways our western individualized culture shapes the way we understand the language in scripture. Having grown up in the US, I know I am very handicapped to understand the communal first century Jewish life from which Jesus speaks.

I agree with the challenge of nuancing the quiz, and yet it does what you intend: requires a reflection at a deeper level, and starts important conversations. I scored a 72, but some of those I truly did not agree with any answer but had to choose one. For example, on the Sabbath question, nothing fit because I believe we are called to observe a sabbath in our lives, but it is not day specific.

Scored a 62... interesting quiz filled with loaded questions and, I thought, a few categories where I wanted to say "yes, but also that one too..."

And I am curious what Scot scored as well :)

I came up with a score of 65, which puts me in the moderate category, right on the threshold of being progressive. This surprised me a bit, because even though I don't view myself as a conservative, I would have thought that I would be closer to the the threshold between conservative and moderate.

As I look at it, the critical issue that I was working out in my hermeneutical approach was not so much my conviction about the Bible being God's word, but rather my posture within the community of faith. As I see it, God does not primarily constitute us as individuals, but rather we are constituted relationally. Salvation is not a ray sent from heaven, but a matter of becoming a part of Christ's body. From this it follows that working out our faith is not a private matter, and a part of working out our faith is interpretation and application of the Gospel to our lives. Thus, interpretation cannot be the private affair of the empowered individual (whether empowered by the Spirit or empowered by a theological instruction). Being constituted as a part of the whole, which is Christ's body, all that we do should reflect that reality. I pray, I minister, I read, I interpret, I reach out to the world as a part of Christ's body. So, though there is a personal dimension to my faith, my faith is by no means a private affair. I think this conviction is what is reflected in the results of my taking this quiz.

I scored a "moderate". I'm not sure what all that means but this was a great idea. Thanks!

Quizzes are very hard to do and difficult to take. Additionally, the end result is a label, a stereotype, a pigeonhole. And it seems with these kids of quizzes one's score can evolve.

I scored a 59, but I wasn't sure what I thought about the choices to which I was limited on several.

I got a 77, but I think that if the questions were worded differently and the liberal side was expanded, I probably could get into heretic territory. :)

Haven't taken the quiz yet, but I'm working up the courage. Afraid I might be too conservative. Afraid I might be too progressive. Afraid none of the answers apply at times. When I take it, I probably won't divulge my score. I believe in the sanctity of the secret ballot. Also won't tell you my choice in the presidential election. Surprised at how many spill their guts here.

Pray for me.

Apparently I am with you T!

I scored an even 60. I understand that it just isn't possible to fit sufficient nuance in an objective quiz to perfectly match one's beliefs. I didn't see the continuum in some cases and would have worded some answers differently. Simple example: Historical context is dangerous to avoid in some cases but not very well known in others.

It is certainly fascinating that it is common practice to see some purity laws as obviously normative and others as obviously not applicable.

An aside: It sounds like a back-handed compliment to say, "What impresses me most about moderates are the struggles they endure to render judgments on hermeneutical issues." Hey! Sounds like you are insulting T's camp! :-)

I scored an 86, just one higher than Katherine and Julie (whom I almost always agree with). Does that make me a conservative Unitarian (LOL!)? Like others, I had trouble with some of the categories and a few times might well have made an even more progressive (or even heretical choice), had it been available.
Here's a calculation of gender scores so far (I guessed that Chris was a male and did not include those who failed to indicate a precise score), not including my score.
Some 15 males averaged 61.8 and 6 females averaged 76.8. What does that tell? you?

Doug

Doug,

Since only 6 women responded, maybe it tells us that women are less likely to be socialized to think hermeneutics is an important topic

I scored a 60 which is the same score I had in bowling. No connection, but I thought there was some deep meaning personally for me.

Jennifer,

Where do you attend seminary and who are your hermeneutics teachers? Just curious to know.

I scored 81, which I was surprised to find was not the most "progressive" score in this group. I found that reassuring, not because I others were farther "out there" than me, but because of my own feeling that despite my liberal positions on a number of issues, I was taking the Bible seriously (although I suppose it's always "...relative to whom?)
Patrick

Thanks Jennifer, I don't know that I've ever heard of the school. Where is it located? From what you say, it sounds like a great one though! I'll have to check on the 2 professors you named. Do they have any published works?

83 the first time round and then 77 the 2nd when I thought about the questions a little more. Surprised me actually. I thought I would have one of the highest scores here. I suppose an important question underlying this is who or what do you think God is. That is going to affect how you answer the questions and a universalist might actually come out with a lower score than you might expect. The other important question is in relation to how you view scripture - I don't view it as inerrant but I do view it seriously, and as something sacred. I have a "high view" of scripture. That term just doesn't mean the same thing to me as the people who usually use it.

I often didn't really see the 1-5 as a continuum either. There were times I thought well, it's either 1 or 5. I can see why Jack had some problems with it. I think liberals and conservatives in liturgical churches would answer these questions differently than liberals and conservatives out of the reformed tradition.

And while I didn't have a problem ticking 5 on the purity questions, I can see the value those laws had in their time and possibly spiritual truths to be gained from understanding why those laws were in place. Similarly, while I don't think Paul's comments on women submitting to their husbands (or slaves to their masters) apply now, I can see some purpose in using and accepting the position you find yourself in to glorify God, rather than spending all your energy fighting against personal injustice. Interestingly, this is a very eastern notion - acceptance - which doesn't fit that comfortably with western ideas of justice and individual rights.

OH, and on a few of the questions I was looking for a "none of the above" option.

I need to amend my statement on the denominational mix in the 'emerging' conversations. My experience now is that folks are coming from many streams of protestant, catholic and orthodox Christianity. In the early conversations I saw this pattern of women from mainline churches and men from evangelical churches (though I grew up in an evangelical mainline church...). Now that I have been part of these conversations in other parts of the world, I see an amazing mix from the Body of Christ!

I haven't posted here much but got a 66. Seems accurate to me. I still don't quite "get" question 18 though. Here it is for clarification.

The requirement of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:29) not to eat any meat improperly killed (strangled instead of having the blood drained properly):
1. Is a permanent commandment for all Christians today.
2. I fall somewhere between No. 1 and No. 3.
3. Is for Jewish Christians only.
4. I fall somewhere between No. 3 and No. 5.
5. Is a temporary custom for first-century Jewish Christians, and is no longer a concern for Christians.

I chose 4. I suppose the question's related to what your views about being kosher are(?). But if the answer were to be 3, the Council didn't have to demand this of themselves; they were Jews and already kosher. This requirement was applicable to the Gentile Christians back then, it seems to me.

Or would 3 be indicative of: Jewish-Christians (of today) must still require non-Jewish Christians who worship with them to follow the requirement?

Another is, and it has nothing to do with my religious beliefs; draining blood out of animals in food preparation or before dressing is simply sanitary (ask any hunter). Afaik, animals aren't strangled to death any more: Not in Western societies during food production where the blood is always drained, and so on.

Did anyone else get confused on this question?

Cool quiz!

Julie - Well said. It is amazing how the relationships change when women are valued as equals. A completely different field is created for fellowship and community.

I scored 63 - 'moderate'. It's interesting to note that many people wanted to choose 'none of the above'. I particularly felt this for the capital punishment question. The alternatives were that you either agree with a literal implementation of the text, or that you concede the cultural context of the OT practice and are necessarily led to consider it inappropriate for today. This question is premised upon a(n American) conception of the church/state relation that could be summarised as 'the state needs to implement biblical commands'. And this is where I would disagree. Its possible to consider capital punishment in the OT culturally conditioned, and still consider it an appropriate action of the state. Likewise, its possible to consider the OT command a true expression of God's will, without enshrining it in legislation.

As a possible alternative to linear positions, something like a 2-dimensional graph may be helpful. The vertical axis could represent the difference between high and low views of scripture (where high means a high degree of correspondence between god's actual thoughts, and the words/thoughts that are ascribed to him in scripture, and low being lower correspondence) and the horizontal axis represents the degree of contextualisation that is necessary. This would make space for postliberalism that may simplistically be described as having a (relatively) low view of scripture, and yet resists contextualisation because the biblical story can't be abstracted to principles. Just a thought.

Anyone care to score Obama based on his hermeneutical stylings here?

http://tinyurl.com/2m2z9z