Hermeneutics Quiz

by Richard on February 28, 2008

Apparently, I’m a Progressive. Which is nice.

What are you?

via the splendid Dave Faulkner, who is apparently, a moderate. As he says, no doubt the quiz is flawed so there’s no need to take it too seriously.

{ 41 comments… read them below or add one }


Kim 02.29.08 at 12:13 am

Progressive (83)


Beth 02.29.08 at 12:21 am

I’m two points less progressive than you, Kimmy. I knew I should have said that adulterers *shouldn’t* be stoned to death… :)


Joel 02.29.08 at 12:44 am

With a score of 66, I am a progressive.


Jan 02.29.08 at 1:02 am

Another progressive here. 79


malc 02.29.08 at 2:01 am

With 61 I’m a moderate, and as the most conservative person here (so far) I take it upon myself to say, “Shame on you all!!” ;o)


Kim 02.29.08 at 7:57 am

Beth: That’s my girl!

Joel: You are one 6 away from being the Beast.

Malc: As Richard and I are kind of your spiritual fathers, and as, so far, you are the most conservative person here, Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

DH: Where are you? -50? :)


tortoise 02.29.08 at 8:04 am

Shame on you, malc. And on all the rest of you Unsound. (I scored 60)


Joel 02.29.08 at 8:07 am


Or maybe I got a 66.6% and they lop instead of round!


Paul Martin 02.29.08 at 9:42 am

I got 84 - progressive.

I always said that Mr Fabricius had findamentalist tendencies!


Kim 02.29.08 at 10:57 am

Hi Paul,

I wish there had been a box to tick for stoning smart-asses!

Although perhaps “findamenatlist” is not a typo but a neologism for one who is “fine”, or one who seeks and “finds” - in which case I take it all back!


Richard 02.29.08 at 12:09 pm

>> ‘Although perhaps “findamenatlist” is not a typo but a neologism for one who is “fine”, or one who seeks and “finds” ‘

It can’t be that. Otherwise, a fundamentalist would be ‘one who has fun’, the opposite of its real meaning ;)


Randy McRoberts 02.29.08 at 1:14 pm

I’m a 77. Does that surprise you, Richard?


ee 02.29.08 at 2:11 pm

Ooh, scoring your faith is good fun.
76 here. Come on Wood, see if you can get a ‘perfect’ 100.


Paul Martin 02.29.08 at 2:19 pm

Kim it is hard for me to spell correctly whilst half asleep - my usual state until mid afternoon.


Kim 02.29.08 at 2:20 pm

And keeping with semantics, Richard, “fundament”, of course, means a person’s butt or anus. So a “fundamentalist” is a … :)


Chris Stacey 02.29.08 at 3:39 pm

I’m happy to assume my position as the biggest heretic so far… 88! I guess that’s to be expected of an SCMer…


PamBG 02.29.08 at 5:35 pm

I got 81 although I frequently wanted to put ‘none of the above’.

I feel it’s obvious that the quiz was written by people who don’t really ‘groc’ the progressive position. (I know it was written by some eminent somewhat-conservative scholars).

Some of the answers were utterly ridiculous but I ticked them as being closest to my own answer. I’m not against capital punishment because any practice delineated in the Old Testament only pertains to ancient Israel - how patronising. I’m against capital punishment because Jesus lived peaceful non-violence in his culture’s equivalent of ‘the war on terror’.


Joel 02.29.08 at 6:20 pm


I think one of the reasons I got a 66 compared to Kim and Richard’s higher numbers (besides the fact that they are radical trouble-making non-conformists) is that I have become very leery of multiple choice questions, and, if offered the choice, will often take less than an absolutist view, even if some of my instincts might be in that direction.

Further, if you take Kim’s score of 83, multiply it by 6 and then add what I suppose his IQ (intellectual, not emotional) might be, you’d probably get 666.


Kim 02.29.08 at 6:25 pm

Hi Joel,
Multiplying anything by my emotional IQ = 0!

Hi Chris (and Wood - to get my retaliation in first!),
SCMers can’t take this test: it’s only for people who read the Bible! :)


Kim 02.29.08 at 6:43 pm

Btw - another critical point (thanks, Pam) - unless I’ve missed a label (there is Conservative, Moderate, and Progressive, right?), the big problem with the Progressive position is that it is such a huge tent that it would seem to include everone from unreconstructed liberals to (I think) post-liberals, post-evangelicals, and Radical Orthodox. As you should all know by now, I like sharing premises with liberals as much as I do with conservative evangelicals! :)


Joel 02.29.08 at 7:01 pm


I won’t take offense about “sharing premises with liberals” because I understand the context in which you are using the word liberal. As you pointed out in response to my post on “liberal theology” such is defined in many ways by what it isn’t rather than what it is. Fair enough, but there isn’t any one word or term that accurately sums up my theological understandings — and probably contrary to any “snide” reference you might make to that relating to be a Wesleyan — but like you I hardly see “progressive” as an adequate expression of either of our theological understandings.

Cheers! :-)


Wood 02.29.08 at 9:03 pm

Shame on you, Kim - the SCM massive did a whole damn book called Reading the Bible. ;)

Anyway, I am sure you want to know what I got.





And I didn’t cheat, either.


Richard 02.29.08 at 9:32 pm

Whoah, Wood. 93!?

That SCM job really has got in amongst you. I suggest you keep that score to yourself, in some circles at least…


Wood 02.29.08 at 10:03 pm

I think it’s a bit too late for that.


Paul Martin 02.29.08 at 10:24 pm

I think that Wood is fast becoming my hero.


Will 02.29.08 at 11:24 pm

For many of the reasons Pam mentioned, I resisted taking the quiz, but finally gave in. I got a 76. That makes me a progressive. That should surprise some - including me!


Kim 03.01.08 at 9:39 am

Anyone in the 90s deserves a good waterboarding. It’s not a torture. It’s just to freshen him up, wise him up a bit. To save him from hell. Because Jesus loves him.


Richard 03.01.08 at 10:00 am

All chant: “Kim’s jealous of Woo-ood. Nah nah na na nah”


PamBG 03.01.08 at 11:32 am

Further, if you take Kim’s score of 83, multiply it by 6 and then add what I suppose his IQ (intellectual, not emotional) might be, you’d probably get 666.

Is that an audition for Countdown then?


Olive Morgan 03.01.08 at 12:45 pm

@Connexions’ wouldn’t need to cause trouble in the playground! If a boy, he’d be known as ‘Con’ and kid people it was short for Constantine; if a girl, shewcould be ‘Connie’ (though it would get contracted to ‘Con’), which would be tken to be a contraction of the equally honourable name of ‘Constance’.


Andybear 03.01.08 at 10:59 pm

67 = Progressive! Please don’t tell the Bretheren, they already think I’m beyond redemption!!!


Richard 03.01.08 at 11:48 pm

Your secret is safe with us, Andy.


Maggi 03.03.08 at 11:59 am

98. Sorry Kim.


kim fabricius 03.03.08 at 3:12 pm

Hi Maggi,

98!! Jesus wept - that is, what’s left of him after a rigorous historical-critical analysis! ;)

And from a Cambridge University College Chaplain! I guess you’re not a regular speaker on the CU circuit then? And what are the odds, folks, that Maggi has a fish on her car (unless it’s being eaten a Tyrannosaurus Rex)?


Maggi 03.03.08 at 4:20 pm

Ha ha, Kim :) none of that stuck on my car… but Jesus is the unseen passenger on every journey :)

seriously though, it shows the impossibility of characterising believers into 3 hermeneutic types - I’m a thoroughly orthodox (or possible neo-orthodox?) theologian, some would probably think me quite conservative; I’m a critical realist, yet quite possibly scored the same as a non-realist…


Wood 03.03.08 at 4:27 pm


I have been defeated. My crown is taken.


malc 03.03.08 at 6:01 pm

Kim, Deut 21:18-21, are you calling me a drunkard and glutton?? I’d be willing to bet that the good methodist, and spiritual father, the Rev. Richard has had more to drink than me this year!!

Though not a very large bet obviously… just in case!!! ;o)


kim fabricius 03.03.08 at 6:06 pm

Hi again Maggi,

Excellent point. I presume you get along with Janet Soskice? And speaking of theological realism/non-realism, I love Rowan Williams’ observation that “Perhaps you could characterise [Don] Cupitt’s presentation by saying that it is an attack on any idea that God is interesting.”

Anyway, lunch - definitely!


Maggi 03.03.08 at 7:04 pm

Kim, Well spotted! Janet supervised my PhD way back… we continue to work together. Lunch it is!


Beth 03.03.08 at 8:25 pm

Pfft - these Cambridge types have no sense of moderation!


DH 03.03.08 at 8:26 pm

Kim, you wanted to know. I scored a 46. However, when I took the test just for curiosity, changing my answers to a little more progressive and with the same answers on one I could not change and the results were 42 the second time and 38 for the final one. I think there might be a flaw on the test. At least, for my evidence I was able to find it.

I do like the answers with the “in between 1 and 2″ or “in between 3 and 5″ I think this allows for more accurate answers where particular answers 1, 3 or 5 just aren’t worded to be accurate with the answer.

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>