Mark D. Roberts

Mark D. Roberts


Presbyterian Exegesis Exam Changed: Section 4

posted by Mark D. Roberts

Part 18 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
So far I’ve put up three posts on recent changes in the exegesis exam of the Presbyterian Church (USA). If you haven’t been reading along, I’ll summarize by saying that the PC(USA) no longer requires candidates for ordination to pastoral ministry to demonstrate knowledge of biblical language (Greek and Hebrew). Moreover, candidates do not have to try to show the “principal meaning” of a text. Now they can simply offer a “faithful interpretation.” (Check out Jim Berkley’s commentary on this “Attractive Nonsense.”)
The Presbyteries’ Cooperative Committee on Examinations for Candidates, the group responsible for the exam changes explained their intentions this way:

We believe that these changes will make it possible for the seminaries to do what they do well, namely to teach Greek and Hebrew and to train students in the art of exegesis, and not have the examination repeat an academic exercise that students have already experienced. At the same time, the changes in the requirements of the exam will allow presbyteries, who know their inquirers/candidates in a way the exam graders cannot, to use the exam as a tool in determining one’s readiness for ministry, including a working knowledge of the biblical languages.

First of all, the exam in no way makes it possible for the seminaries to do what they do well, since the exam is independent of the seminaries. This is bluster. It is true, however, that the exam in its new form does not have students repeat an academic exercise they have already experienced. But why have an exegesis exam at all, then? Students have taken exegesis and preaching already. So why have an exegesis exam with a preaching component? According to the committee’s logic, the exam in its new form is still redundant and unnecessary. If what the committee has done remains intact and becomes part of the PC(USA) practice, I predict that this is the beginning of the end of ordination exams, period. Think about it. Right now we require candidates to pass ordination exams on Presbyterian polity. But we also require students to pass seminary courses on Presbyterian polity. Isn’t it redundant and unnecessary to have a polity exam, if we accept the committee’s logic? Ditto with theology and worship exams.
Second, the changes in the exam will not give presbyteries any greater ability to determine a candidate’s readiness for ministry, except that they will receive comments about the candidate’s language ability. But this was true in the past as well, so there is nothing gained here. In fact, the new exam will take away from presbyteries the chance to have tested a candidate’s ability to use the tools of biblical study to determine the original meaning of a text. Presbyteries will now be able to know only that candidate can produce a faithful interpretation of a passage.
And so, once again, we see evidence of the end of the PC(USA). Up to now, the PC(USA) has been distinctive (though not unique) among denominations and churches in expecting its ordained pastors to have a basic knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, and to be able to use language and other skills to discover the “principal meaning” of a biblical text. When so many churches and denominations allow people to be ordained as pastors without seminary training or instruction in biblical exegesis, the PC(USA) continued to affirm the importance of such training. Behind this affirmation was a conviction about the importance of the original meaning of Scripture. The new PC(USA), even if it continues to exist into the future, will not be like the old PC(USA), a denomination committed to the right interpretation of the Bible. The PC(USA) we have known is ending right before our very eyes.
I want to close with a story and a word of encouragement for candidates and seminarians. A good friend of mine, a candidate for ordination in the PC(USA), is in the midst of taking the biblical exegesis exam. When I mentioned to her the changes in the exam, she almost became unglued.
“What is my denomination saying to me?” she asked, angrily. “Why did they require me to take so many classes in Greek and Hebrew if I didn’t need to use what I had learned? Why did I have to take exegesis classes if I need only to come up with a faithful interpretation? Why has the PC(USA) wasted my time this way? I am really angry.”
“I understand your anger, and share it,” I replied. “But don’t despair. Yes, the PC(USA) isn’t interested in whether you can use Greek and Hebrew. And it isn’t going to ask you to find the original meaning of a passage. But you didn’t take so many classes just to pass your exegesis exam. You took those classes and learned those skills so you could be an effective interpreter of Scripture. You did those things so you would be a better pastor. And you will be because of your efforts. So, forget about the PC(USA). What you have learned will help you know with greater accuracy what Scripture means. It will make you a better teacher and preacher of God’s Word. And it has been and will be honoring to God, who chose to reveal himself through a Greek and Hebrew, the original meaning of which is hugely important, no matter what the PC(USA) thinks.” (Photo: I’m presenting Bibles to children at Irvine Presbyterian Church. I loved giving children their very own copies of God’s Word.)

I preached weekly sermons and taught weekly Bible studies for over 20 years as an ordained pastor, at the First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood and at Irvine Presbyterian Church. During those years I prepared more than 1,000 sermons and studies. I will admit that there were some occasions when I was just too busy to pay close attention to the original languages or even to seek out the original meanings of the biblical passages. But, for the most part, I tried every single time to go back to the Bible to discover, not what I thought it meant, but what it really meant. And, believe me, there is a difference between these.
On literally hundreds of occasions, I would come to a biblical passage with what I thought was a fairly good idea of what it meant. Sometimes I’d even have planned a sermon on the basis of my own faithful interpretation. But then, as I studied the text, going back to the original language, I would discover that the text actually meant something different from what I had presupposed. Because I was committed to careful exegesis and to the authority of the biblical text itself, I sometimes had to change the main point of a sermon. My faithful interpretations, however well-intended and reasonable, turned out to be wrong.
Now you may want to object that I was able to do this sort of exegesis because I had unusual training. I agree that the average pastor did not take the number of language classes I had to take for my Ph.D. in New Testament: five years of Greek, two-and-a-half years of Hebrew, plus many exegesis courses. Indeed, there was a time when average seminary graduates were mostly unable to use the ancient languages they had learned in seminaries. But this has changed drastically because of the computer. Now people with a solid year of biblical Greek can use that Greek well. To be sure, they will miss some of the nuances. But, with a decent computer and a fairly inexpensive computer program, they can use their Greek with competence. I know this for a fact because I taught Greek to dozens of seminarians. I also helped most of them prepare for the PC(USA) exegesis exam. I’m not aware of any who were unable to pass that exam in its earlier form, at least on their second try.
So, if you’re a candidate or seminarian or pastor, don’t let the PC(USA) mistaken change discourage you. Continue to learn and use the biblical languages. Continue to seek the original meaning of a biblical passage. These disciplines are precious, and will help you know and communicate God’s truth with greater accuracy and impact.



  • Bill Goff

    Hi Mark,
    I deeply appreciate your pastoral counsel on this issue. It is troubling to me that there appears to be a drift in the PCUSA away from solid biblical interpretation and preaching. As you know, I was raised in a strong evangelical tradition at Hollywood Pres and Fuller Seminary. In my day I had to prove to the Presbytery that I was not some right-wing fundamentalist. I was always aware that there were many ordained clergy who were much more liberal than I was (and am). This is nothing new to me. But we maintained a cordial relationship and I was never told what to preach or how to pastor. I often found myself in the odd and uncomfortable position of being a theological conservative and a social liberal. I don’t have any idea if there are many such creatures left in the PCUSA today. Jesus’ parable of the wheat and tares comes to mind when I think of the current situation in the Presbyterian Church. But I am not sure how long we can “live and let live”; we may finally have to apply the admonition to “come out from among them”. I hope we can avoid that – but not at any cost. Thanks for the thoughtful series on the exegesis exams.

  • Lesley Davies

    To whom it may concern,
    It appears that the announcement about the change in the ordination examination on Biblical Exegesis was not clearly understood.
    It is not true that the PCUSA no longer requires candidates for the Ministry of Word and Sacrament.
    What IS true is that the evaluation of competence in the Biblical languages will be made by CPMs, based on transcipts, exegetical work and the exam, but not SOLELY on the examination.
    Please visit the Ordination Examinations webpage at pcusa.org/exams to read all of the information. The interpretation presented in this article is not complete.

  • http://epistle.langhornepres.org/ Bill Teague

    If Lesley Davies has read only today’s post, it is not hard to see why she has come to the conclusion the announcement at http://www.pcusa.org/exams/exegesisinfo.htm#changes was not clearly understood. Mark’s summary (“I’ll summarize by saying that the PC(USA) no longer requires candidates for ordination to pastoral ministry to demonstrate knowledge of biblical language (Greek and Hebrew)”) should have included additional words to indicate that knowledge of Greek and/or Hebrew will not be required for the successful completion of the exegesis exam.
    Those who have read the entire series, however, know that the point has been well taken and debated and that the announcement has been quoted accurately and extensively.
    As Associate for Examination Services, and if she is in a position to do so, it would be nice to hear more from Ms Davies as to the committee’s reasoning behind the changes. Any response to the substantive discussion here would be appreciated.

  • J. Falconer

    Rev. Roberts, Your latest post & series is highly appreciated. The photo brought back many happy & fine memories at your Irvine church. My father got his Master’s Degree in Science Education at Texas A & M University many years ago. We can all see your gifts in seeking higher education & spirituality. We believe mind, body & spirit are all interconnected. Thanks for always sharing your posts & photos. The photo you posted gave me the biggest smile of my day.. Thanks again & God Bless

  • Jerry Tankersley

    Mark,
    Thanks for your wise counsel on the matter of biblical languages. When I was a young student at Westmont College, my professor of N.T. Greek, Dr. David Hubbard, later President of Fuller Seminary, was asked by some of my fellow students if the study of original languages was not a waste of time. His response was, “It just depends on how good of a man, ‘person”, you want to be.”
    His exhortation has lived on week to week as I have prepared to preach and to teach the written Word of God. Attending to the original text has always enriched my spiritual journey and allowed me to give to my listeners what they have deserved, and that is a proclaimer who has placed himself under the authority of the written Word of God, in dependence upon the Holy Spirit for illumination. If preaching is the communication of truth by means of human personality, we can only pray that the living Word will have shaped and formed the soul of its human agent.
    Keep up the good work.
    Jerry Tankersley

  • http://tullyrobert.blogspot.com/ Robert Campbell

    First I’ve blogged on this issue myself. You can find it at:
    http://tullyrobert.blogspot.com/
    This is mostly a response to Leslie. We Presbyterians have tended toward a balance of powers that was borrowed by the U.S. Government. I suggest that the same balance should occur between COPM, Ordination Exams and Seminary work. Just because someone passes Greek and a class or two that includes New Testament exegesis one cannot assume that person has retained that skill by the time s/he takes the ordination exam. And yes the primary responsibility lies with the COPM but ordination exams began back in the 1960′s because there was concern that presbyteries were not all up to snuff when it came to overseeing the work of candidates.
    As you would see in my blog, I see this as a result of changes in Chapter 14 of the FOG. the old chapter 14 made the intent of the Exegesis Exam clear. Now it is only listed. The proposed amendment gives some definition but clearly not enough.
    As Jim Berkley says in his blog on the subject it all comes down to the meaning of the word faithful. And here I suppose only Leslie can give us an answer to the question. When graders receive instruction on how to grade the exams will faithful mean an interpretation that is faithful to the meaning of the text (the intent of the writer as best we can discover it) or not?
    And the final and most important concern, at least to me, is this: this change in grading expectations allows the COPM to decide what level of ability of the use of original languages is necessary for ordination. This changes the balance of powers putting most of the power in the hands of the COPM. The exam will no longer be a necessary test of ability to do exegesis but merely information for the COPM. And that, I think, is a mistake.

Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Mark D. Roberts. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 2:09:11pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

Why Did Jesus Have to Die? Conclusions
In this series on the death of Jesus, I have presented four different perspectives on why Jesus had to die: Roman, Jewish, Jesus’, and Early Christian. I believe that each of these points of view has merit, and that we cannot fully understand the necessity of Jesus’ death without taking them all

posted 2:47:39am Apr. 11, 2011 | read full post »

Sunday Inspiration from the High Calling
Can We Find God in the City? Psalm 48:1-14 Go, inspect the city of Jerusalem. Walk around and count the many towers. Take note of the fortified walls, and tour all the citadels, that you may describe them to future generations. For that is what God is like. He is our God forever and ever,

posted 2:05:51am Apr. 10, 2011 | read full post »

Why Did Jesus Have to Die? The Perspective of the First Christians, Part 3
An Act and Symbol of Love Perhaps one of the most startling of the early Christian interpretations of the cross was that it was all about love. It’s easy in our day, when crosses are religious symbols, attractive ornaments, and trendy jewelry to associate the cross with love. But, in the first

posted 2:41:47am Apr. 08, 2011 | read full post »

Why Did Jesus Have to Die? The Perspective of the First Christians, Part 2
The Means of Reconciliation In my last post, I examined one of the very earliest Christian statements of the purpose of Jesus’ death. According to the tradition encapsulated in 1 Corinthians 15, Jesus died “for our sins in accordance with the scriptures” (15:3). Yet this text doesn’t expl

posted 2:30:03am Apr. 07, 2011 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.