Day: 18 November 2010

growth(?) in theological thinking

A while back, I did a post on the results of two definitive quizzes that determined not only my eschatology but also my theological affinities with the minds of generations past.  This evening, while doing some extra-curricular blog reading, I came across someone who recently took the theological quiz and it got me thinking.  I began to wonder if anything has changed in the two years since I last took the quiz.  Throwing caution to the wind I decided to take it over again, and here are the results:

You scored as Anselm.
Anselm is the outstanding theologian of the medieval period. He sees man’s primary problem as having failed to render unto God what we owe him, so God becomes man in Christ and gives God what he is due. You should read ‘Cur Deus Homo?’

[ratings in comparison with other theologians:]

Anselm……………………………..80%
Jonathan Edwards…………….67&
Friederick Schleiermacher….67%
John Calvin……………………….53%
Karl Barth…………………………47%
Jürgen Moltmann………………47%
Charles Finney…………………..33%
Paul Tillich………………………..33%
Augustine…………………………33%
Martin Luther……………………20%

I have a good deal of respect for Anselm, but I don’t think I fully adhere to his views.  (I think the quiz is rigged).  I did find it interesting that Calvin is slightly further down the list and that Schleiermacher moved up a few notches.  I was also intrigued by the fact that the bottom four are the same as last time, and the differences in percentages are not that significant.  Sorry boys, you just haven’t given me enough persuasion to move.

And just for fun, also to be fair and thorough, I (re)took the eschatology quiz for pretty much the same reasons.  Here are the results of that one:

You scored as Amillennialist
Amillenialism believes that the 1000 year reign is not literal but figurative, and that Christ began to reign at his ascension. People take some prophetic scripture far too literally in your view.

[ratings in comparison with other theologians:]

Amillennialist………………………80%
Moltmannian Eschatology……75%
Postmillenialist…………………….60%
Preterist…………………………….55%
Premillenialist……………………..35%
Dispensationalist…………………20%
Left Behind………………………..15%

I was a little surprised by this one.  (I guess the Amillennial view is about as close as I’m going to get the: I-don’t-really-mind-because-God’s-going-to-do-what-God’s-going-to-do-when-God’s-going-to-do-it-and-I-really-have-no-say-in-the-matter view.  Yeah, not a catchy title like the others).  I thought for sure that the Dispensational view and Left Behind crap category would have been much lower, but for some unknown reason they continue to haunt me.  If either one breaks 25% . . . I’m not really sure what I’ll do.

new read and two big thank yous

If you are not aware, Kenneth Schenck has recently published the first volume (of two) in his treatment of Paul’s life and teaching.  This first book is aptly called, Paul: Messenger of Grace.  Volume two of Schenck’s treatment is intriguingly called, Paul: Soldier of Peace, and it is set to be released sometime in the near future.  However, Schenck has been given permission by his publisher to blog drafts of both works; so if you would like to get a ‘sneak preview’, head over to his site and have a read. 

Once I learned that Schneck produced this treatment on Paul, I became rather excited; not just because it’s another book on Paul, but also because it’s a book on Paul done by Kenneth Schenck–a scholar and writer I admire.  I then e-mailed Schenck to see if it was too late for me to request a review copy of his new book, and I was given the gracious response: ‘let me see what I can do.’  (That was on 30-Oct).  Three days ago, a review copy from the kind people at Wesleyan Publishing House arrived at the house!  My deepest thanks go out to both Schenck and WPH.

(I’ve been making my way through the book during my lunch-time breaks, and hope to be finished with it sometime soon.  Once I’m done, I’ll write up a review and post it here).