I'm one of those strange ones: Having grown up a Pentecostal and ministering wholeheartedly as a Pentecostal pastor, my style is rational, with a tendency towards doctrinal. The result of the test didn't really surprise me, but I'm amazed by how much I find myself in the description of the rational style.
Re-reading the section, there was one point I wasn't so sure about, however: The book states that there is a danger that someone with a rational style might only accept encounters with God as valid if they're able to pass by the filter of their reason. I'm not so sure about that. (See, I'm rational. Questioning and criticizing away ... :-)). Reflection about God being an essential part of my spirituality, I find it very natural and logical to conclude that a being such as God would have aspects and ways that go beyond my understanding. This does not keep me from questioning, investigating and trying to (rationally) know more about God (and know God more -- if there really is a difference). Every once in a while, in my search for understanding, I will hit a boundary -- the boundary of human (or at least my own limited) understanding. I'm not surprised that limit is there. But, being rational, I strive to extend my knowledge right up to that boundary wherever possible. I'm not satisfied with anything less. And I'm (that's where I find myself right with the book again) sometimes appalled by the simple answers others are able to contend themselves with.
In other words, with all my love for reasoning and theology, I'm absolutely convinced that theology cannot (and should not) overcome the concept of "mystery" when it comes to God. But then, again, maybe that's just my being Pentecostal interacting with my rationality. At any rate, I find it greatly exciting to discover God using my reason as well as discovering that there are other ways of encountering him that simply go beyond my simple mind.
Blessings,
Christoph