Concerns have been raised in public arenas in the life of the church about recent changes to the Open Book Bible Exegesis examination. The expression of these concerns points to the important role the examinations play in the larger preparation for ministry process in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
The Presbyteries’ Cooperative Committee on Examinations for Candidates (PCCEC) appreciates the opportunity to respond to concerns and to clarify steps that have been taken and are being taken to continue to make the examinations effective tools in helping discern a candidate’s readiness for ministry. The PC(USA) requires inquirers and candidates who are preparing for the ministry of Word and Sacrament to complete successfully five ordination examinations, as described in the Book of Order (G-14.0430). The PCCEC is charged with the responsibility for writing, administering, and overseeing the grading of these examinations on behalf of the whole church. The committee has 24 members, half of whom are elected through the General Assembly and half of whom are elected from regional reading groups that grade the examinations. The reading groups are made up of ministers and elders who are elected by presbyteries. The PCCEC recently completed a two-year self-study process as required by the General Assembly. A copy of this report is available on the Web site for Ordination Examinations at www.pcusa.org/exams. The study reviewed the committee’s work (2002-2008). The committee solicited suggestions, comments, and critique from many invested parties around the church involved with the examination process, including: • Members of Committees on Preparation for Ministry (CPM); • Pastors who were recently ordained in the PC(USA); • Inquirers and candidates who were taking the examinations; • Ministers and Elders elected by presbyteries to read/grade the written examinations; • Members of the Committee on Theological Education As a result of the self-study, members of the PCCEC recommended changes in the wording of the Book of Order regarding ordination examinations (G-14.0431). The recommendation was approved by the 218th General Assembly and forwarded to the presbyteries for ratification, which will take place between now and next June. Proposed changes in the descriptions of two of the examinations, Biblical Exegesis and Theological Competence, were also made to the GA. The Assembly approved these changes, and the actions are recorded in its Minutes. During the course of the self-study and additional conversations with the deans and some faculty members of our PC(USA) seminaries, it became clear that there were serious concerns over the format and grading of the Biblical Exegesis examinations, including: • The perception that the exegesis exam is simply a repetition of an academic exercise already completed in seminary; • The difficulty of assessing a candidate’s overall facility in Greek or Hebrew given the examination’s structure and the limits of some readers’ own facility with the language; • The fairness and wisdom of having readers without formal training in Biblical languages make a decision on a working knowledge of Greek or Hebrew; • Recent developments in Biblical studies that have moved away from the idea that there is a single meaning of a passage of Scripture. In response to these concerns two changes were made. Specifically, in wording posted on the Ordination Examinations Web site, “the demonstration of a working knowledge of Greek and/or Hebrew will no longer be a requirement in order to complete the examination successfully,” and “inquirers/candidates will be asked to offer ‘a faithful interpretation’ of the assigned text, rather than ‘the principal meaning’ of the text.” Commentary offered on these changes suggests that some clarification may be helpful. It must be emphasized that all candidates continue to be required to answer questions dealing with the assigned texts in the original Greek or Hebrew languages. However, under previous guidelines, readers were instructed to evaluate an examination as “unsatisfactory” if it did not “demonstrate a working knowledge” of the appropriate Biblical language, even if in every other respect the paper exceeded expectations. What has changed is that a paper will no longer receive an “unsatisfactory” evaluation solely for that reason. Readers will continue to assess the facility demonstrated in dealing with these languages and applying them to interpretations for the work of ministry. Those assessments will factor into the overall evaluation of the examination, but they will not determine alone that overall evaluation. Additionally, CPMs will continue to assess candidates’ proficiency in Hebrew and Greek on the basis of grades received for seminary language and exegetical courses, where students are asked to demonstrate a working knowledge of these languages through a variety of different linguistic tasks. Regarding the second change, there is concern about what is meant by the words “a faithful interpretation” of the text. Those who have raised concerns about the changed language have taken “faithful” to mean “having faith” (to draw on one of the definitions listed in Webster’s). It has been suggested on the basis of this phrasing that if an interpretation is offered that has or expresses the faith of the candidate, then there would be no grounds for questioning it. That would be, as some have suggested, “awfully open-ended.” This was not the intent of the change in wording Another definition of the word “faithful” (again from Webster’s) is “consistent with truth or fact, ‘a faithful reproduction of the document.’” Used in this way, it is possible to determine whether or not an interpretation is “faithful” to the text. Is it “consistent with the facts” about the text’s wording, the facts concerning the text’s historical, social, canonical, and theological contexts, and so forth? It is in this sense that the examination has and will continue to assess candidates’ interpretations of the assigned passages. Recent trends in biblical scholarship have drawn attention to the fact that texts can have more than one meaning, or principal message, whether identified with the author’s intention or another standard. Texts yield different meanings depending on the questions being put to them. The church has long understood this quality of its Scriptures as demonstrated by the fourfold allegorical interpretation practiced through much of its history. Even the Reformers and subsequent scholars who objected to excesses in the allegorical interpretation of the medieval church did not suggest a text had only one meaning. Moreover, members of the PCCEC do not believe that this trend undermines the authority of Scripture; rather, it points to the working of the Spirit, who can open human minds and hearts to different nuances in a single text in different times and in different places. Experience in ministry bears out that when one preaches on a text from which one has preached in the past, one often discovers something new about that text based on changed circumstances, spiritual growth, and the specific needs of the community of faith. A candidate may engage in responsible exegesis of a text and find several meanings that are both relevant and faithful interpretations of that text. What is important is that the interpretation presented in the examination be “faithful” in the sense of “consistent with the facts” relative to the text. As the PCCEC continues to respond to concerns identified in its recent self-study, we welcome questions and comments to strengthen both the examination process and the preparation of candidates for the Ministry of Word and Sacrament in the PC(USA). Lesley Davies is Manager of Examination Services in the Office of Vocation under the Office of the General Assembly. Timothy B. Cargal is moderator of the PCCEC’s Bible Task Group, is pastor of Northwood Church in Silver Spring, Md., and Professor of Biblical Studies and Languages in the Ecumenical Institute of Theology at St. Mary’s Seminary and University, Baltimore, Md.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
To me, the change in the Greek standard is a helpful revision because it allows those of us reading the exams to take the exegetical paper as a whole in deciding on an appropriate grade. For example, the NT text for this year, Matthew 20:1-16, did not have much of substance to discuss from the Greek text. (And realistically, with the plethora of online and computer language programs and resources available today, everyone has access to the details of grammar and syntax of the biblical text).
So, rather than striving to dig up extra Greek material, the better papers made note of the pertinent original language issues and moved on to more substantive discussions. From my experience, it is always very clear in the paper who had a grasp of the language and, more importantly, knew how to critically discuss and apply those understandings. Also, as the letter from Davies and Cargal correctly points out, it is finally the CPMs task to determine Hebrew/Greek competence, and in many ways they are a better position to judge than those of us reading one paper from a candidate.
As for the “principal meaning vs. faithful interpretation” issue, the PCCEC has again listened to those who read exams. This year’s text from Matthew again provides an illustration because it is difficult (and, possibly, exegetically inappropriate) to assign only one, definitive “principal meaning” to the Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard (or is it the “Parable of the Generous Employer”?). There are a number of different an very defendable ways to interpret this text. What I, as a reader, am looking for is the ability of the candidate to be in conversation with both historical and modern interpreters and traditions while still allowing room for the Spirit’s prompting to preach God’s word in their particular context. From my experience, the papers that pass the exam clearly demonstrate this ability.
My suggestion to those who are concerned about a perceived lowering of standard or “politically correct” behavior is to become involved in the ordination exam process—whether by volunteering to read exams or being a part of your Presbytery’s CPM. A view from inside the process may open your eyes to complexities and nuances that are easily overlooked.