Entertaining
quiz to label your brand of theology.
Worth taking just so that you can ask yourself a few questions.
You can see here what I ended up with, and it's only "uh... ye-eah
kinda..-ish.." as far as I'm concerned. I actually hate at least 85% ofthe questions asked. I guess it's probably mostly correct, but I also hate their description of it. : ]
| You scored as Emergent/Postmodern. You are
Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated
from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to
modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about
God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so
learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place
in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls.
People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions,
so the church should help them to do this.
Emergent/Postmodern | | 79% | Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan | | 71% | Reformed Evangelical | | 68% | Neo orthodox | | 61% | Fundamentalist | | 61% | Charismatic/Pentecostal | | 46% | Classical Liberal | | 46% | Modern Liberal | | 32% | Roman Catholic | | 32% |
|
11 Comments:
You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists.
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 79%
Reformed Evangelical 61%
Neo orthodox 57%
Emergent/Postmodern 57%
Roman Catholic 46%
Fundamentalist 29%
Charismatic/Pentecostal 21%
Classical Liberal 21%
Modern Liberal 21%
That's where I came out the first time, too.. there was actually a "tiebreaker" question for me, because I had equal scores for EH/W and E/P.
However, the first time I took it, because I hated the questions so much, I made a rule that I could only answer to the absolute left or right. : ]
And as we know.. I'm a lot flakier than that.
I think that the questions are fairly crappy, too - or that they at least need to be divided into about twice as many questions.
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan
89%
Fundamentalist
68%
Emergent/Postmodern
61%
Reformed Evangelical
61%
Neo orthodox
57%
Charismatic/Pentecostal
36%
Roman Catholic
32%
Classical Liberal
29%
Modern Liberal
14%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan
93%
Emergent/Postmodern
79%
Neo orthodox
64%
Roman Catholic
61%
Reformed Evangelical
57%
Fundamentalist
57%
Classical Liberal
32%
Charismatic/Pentecostal
29%
Modern Liberal
4%
This may actually be instructive. My bottom two categories:
Fundamentalist
Modern Liberal
That pretty much nails it. I'm certainly neither, but this makes people uncomfy, because they'd rather you're one or the other.
I'm apparently "neo-orthodox", which is cool, because "neo" sounds cool.
Brant
Yeah, I wanted to be neo, too. But apparently I'm not cool enough. Once again. Dangit.
I don't know that mine is very instructive. I think, honestly, that I got labeled emergent/postmod because I don't really know for sure what I know.
You should look into the "radical orthodoxy" thing, Brant. I know, it's probably better for you to be neo than radical.. 'cause, y'know, "radical"..? Seriously. Come on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_orthodoxy
Here (from the bottom of that wikipedia article), is a link to a "First Things" article. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0002/articles/reno.html
I'm not sure it's 100% on.. it seems to indicate that Radical Orthodoxy is "soft on Jesus", so to speak--and I'm not sure that's really true. Reno starts out saying that it's reckless to generalize about the theology because of the breadth of its proponents, but then goes on to analyze two (mostly one) of its proponents' writings.
Anyway, it's pretty interesting. There is certainly a lot in it that I identify with, as I'm sure will you.
I'm a First Things enthusiast (mildly-put) so I've read the Reno article.
I'm not sure about the radical-orthodox label thing, primarily because it eliminates the uber-cool "Neo" part.
As you know, we stopped "going to church" several months ago. Maybe "neo" means you don't go to church.
Brant
It *may* mean that you glow in the dark. Or at least are kind of iridescent.
Anyway, like I said, the whole "radical" thing... idunno. Very Petra. Very 1987. Not sure that really says "Brant!"
I am kinda disappointed that you didn't have some kind of engaging insight on the school of thought. But I guess it wouldn't be as special if you turned on the power every time we asked. I'll have to satisfy myself by bugging an actual theo/philo prof about it.
If it helps, apparently I'm aligned with Karl Barth.
Problem is, I really can't discuss Barth intelligently. I do know that I go for the concept of "natural law", which Barth rejected, so I'm a little surprised. But that's about all I know.
I don't think you're supposed to pronounce the "h" in "Barth", but I'm not even sure of that, really.
Brant
Thanks for trying, anyway. I know that it's probably a doomed endeavor to try and fill my blog w/ actual substantive content--so much precendent pushes in the opposite direction..
I don't know, but it would probably be worth examining whether the "natural law" that you embrace is the same one that Barth rejects. Words, words... probably my emergent/postmod tendencies coming to the surface..
And I believe you're right about that "t".
I don't *know* it, mind you.. but I believe!
(I'll see if I can get up a fresh post and arrange a guest blogger.. maybe we'll learn a little sumthin'..)
Post a Comment
<< Home