Ministry Gifts: Survey

I just found this site that has a survey which you can find out your ministry gifts. It's a series of 4 surveys, each 33 questions long, but you get a report for each survey. It's pretty good! It is different from the Advanced Seminar's (IBLP) ministry quiz in that this one also takes into account how much you actually use your gifts. Which, if you think about it, is also a very important thing to take into account. After all, there is no point having a gifting if you don't use it!!

Try it yourself: Ministry Survey. It's is part of www.hymnsite.com

Anyway, I did it, and this is what I got:


By Score:

Instrumental Music
4
4
4
4
16

Writing
4
4
3
3
14

Artistry
4
3
3
4
14

Serving
3
3
3
3
12

Encouragement or Exhortation
4
3
2
3
12

Wisdom
3
3
3
2
11

Teaching
3
3
1
4
11

Missionary
3
3
2
3
11

Mercy
4
3
3
1
11

Leadership
4
2
3
2
11

Giving
3
3
3
2
11

Faith
3
3
3
2
11

Evangelist
3
2
2
4
11

Vocal Music
3
4
1
2
10

Pastor/Shepherd
2
3
2
3
10

Knowledge
3
2
2
2
09

Discernment of Spirits
3
3
1
2
09

Administration
3
2
3
1
09

Prayer or Intercession
1
2
2
2
07

Miracles
2
2
2
1
07

Hospitality
2
2
2
1
07

Tongues
3
3
0
0
06

Speaking
0
2
1
2
05

Healing
2
1
2
0
05

Dreams
2
1
1
1
05

Craftsmanship
2
1
1
1
05

Apostle
2
1
2
0
05

Visions
2
1
1
0
04

Marrying
3
1
0
0
04

Helping
1
1
1
0
03

Celibacy
0
1
0
2
03

Prophecy
1
0
0
1
02

Interpretation of Tongues
1
0
0
1
02

Principle over compromise

Now this is what I call inspiring. These people are heroes in the student world of would-be-lawyers. Not only did they have the gumption to go out there and stick to their principles, they actually ended up winning third place in an international competition! Not bad at all.

What Champs!!

-Article taken from The Trumpet of Liberty-

Patrick Henry College
Winter 2001


Principle Over Compromise at
National Competition

In January, eight Patrick Henry College students
and President Mike Farris traveled to the University of Texas at Arlington to
compete in the American Collegiate Moot Court Association's second annual
tournament (January 18-19). Thirty-eight teams made up of undergraduate students from 18 colleges and universities were tested in their ability to argue a mock case before the United States Supreme Court. The PHC team did an outstanding job on two levels.


In the preliminary rounds, PHC's teams compiled a composite record of six wins and two losses. Two of those teams-Jane Grisham (freshman-IL) and Claire Verschoof (senior-MI); Kyle Pousson (freshman-VA) and Sarah Adell (freshman-NC)-advanced to the quarterfinals as the result of perfect records in the preliminary rounds.


Pousson and Adell advanced to the semi-final round, where they lost to the team from Howard Payne University (which eventually won the tournament), but took home the third place trophy. Adell was awarded the sixth place speaker trophy for her total speaker points, which ranked her near the top of the 79 individual competitors.


It is important to note that the vast majority of the participants in the tournament were seniors. The team that defeated Pousson and Adell were both seniors who have already achieved admittance to prestigious law schools for this coming fall. The general consensus at the tournament was that it was a remarkable achievement for two freshmen to rank third in the nation.


However, PHC's ability to understand and argue the law with persuasion was only one of the challenges. There was a second, more subtle test that was in many ways far more important.


The assigned case had two issues. One issue concerned the law of search and seizure. The second issue concerned homosexual rights. All teams were required to switch back and forth representing each side of the case in alternating rounds. The PHC teams had no moral dilemma concerning the search and seizure issue. It was also quite acceptable for them to argue for the state's position on the homosexual rights question. But they were also assigned to argue for the homosexual men on that same issue.


Fortunately, the mock case was written in such a way that it gave the PHC team an alternative argument that few other colleges anticipated. They were able to argue that the issue of homosexual rights had been settled by the state court, and it was a violation of the principle of federalism for the U.S. Supreme Court to review that portion of the case. They were able to present their assigned position by simply arguing for federalism and totally avoided any argument that would advance homosexual rights.


However, one judge in the semi-final round kept questioning Pousson to try to get him to argue in favor of homosexual rights. He politely stuck to his federalism argument and refused to present a theory that is morally offensive (not to mention legally invalid).


"There is little doubt that their loss in the semi-finals was, at least in part, attributable to this judge's view that we should have argued in favor of homosexual rights," Dr. Farris said.


Even though Dr. Farris had coached the team and had encouraged them to take this position, he left the ultimate decision up to the members of the team whether they would "role play" as requested or stand for principle even in a mock trial situation. Each of the eight students steadfastly stood for principle in each of their rounds.


After the tournament, Dr. Farris told the team that it was far better to be disappointed than to be ashamed. "Although a third place finish is nothing to be ashamed of, I was far more proud of receiving that third place trophy with honor than I would have been with a first place trophy with compromise," he said.


The other four members of the team were Tim Doozan (sophomore-FL) and Danny Davis (sophomore-GA); Galen Thorp (sophomore-Netherlands Antilles [Galen's parents are missionaries]) and Daniel Chapin (freshman-OR). Doozan and Davis won the 22-team intramural tournament at PHC. Chapin and Thorp placed second at the PHC qualifying tournament.


The tournament director expressed his amazement at the strong showing made by this new college, and predicted that other schools will have quite a challenge to face next year. "It was an incredible learning experience," said Sarah Adell. "We're all fired up to go back next year and win."

2 whole months!

Oh dear... I'm dismayed to find that it's been 2 whole months since I've posted on my blog!! It was definitely a good idea to do away with the other 3. ^^

I've just been too busy... and even now, I shouldn't even be here. I've got three assignments due next week, none of them finished (not even 10% done) and here I am- but ok... excuses, excuses.

Uni's been going well this year. It hasn't been so much of a struggle with the legalese anymore since I've had a whole year of acclimatization last year. ^^ So that means that instead of having to read a passage 5 times through before understanding it, I only have to read it thrice. Sometimes twice. Not bad, huh?

Even Charles Dickens wasn't so hard to understand. If I didn't understand a sentence, why- just skip it! Unfortunately though, if I did that with my textbooks, they'd be reduced to about 10% of their original size, and fit only to be used as fire fuel (or maybe car fuel, now that prices have inflated so dramatically)

Anyway... where was I? Oh yes... my studies.

Everything is ok so far and hopefully I will last out another 1 month and 1 week. After that it'll be a 7 week HOLIDAY for me! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!! And I seriously need it. Pimples have been popping up out of nowhere... I'm serious!! My poor vanity >.<

Anyhow, I better get on with my readings. I've about 13 cases and 2 chapters to read. :P Enough bludging.