{"id":520,"date":"2008-08-27T01:01:10","date_gmt":"2008-08-27T01:01:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/markdroberts\/2008\/08\/presbyterian-exegesis-exam-changed-section-2.html"},"modified":"2008-08-27T01:01:10","modified_gmt":"2008-08-27T01:01:10","slug":"presbyterian-exegesis-exam-changed-section-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/2008\/08\/presbyterian-exegesis-exam-changed-section-2.html","title":{"rendered":"Presbyterian Exegesis Exam Changed: Section 2"},"content":{"rendered":"

Part 16 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited
\n<\/em>Permalink for this post<\/a> \/ Permalink for this series<\/a>
\nYesterday I began commenting on recent changes in the exegesis exam of the Presbyterian Church (USA). For the first time in ages, the PC(USA) will no longer require candidates taking the exegesis exam to demonstrate a knowledge of ancient biblical languages or to find the \u201cprincipal meaning\u201d of a passage. Now, candidates can pass the exegesis exam without showing that they know the original language of the text. And instead of trying to explain what that text originally meant, they need only to offer a \u201cfaithful interpretation\u201d of the text.
\nWhat does this mean, exactly? Who\u2019s to say whether an interpretation is faithful or not? In the end, who can say those who have injected their personal faith into a text that their interpretation is not faithful? I suppose if one defined \u201cfaithful\u201d as \u201cfaithful to the original meaning of the text and to the use of the original language,\u201d then we could argue about the faithfulness of an interpretation. But this is clearly not what the PCUSA means by \u201cfaithful interpretation.\u201d
\nLet me offer an example of one reason why I have a problem with \u201cfaithful interpretation\u201d as the new standard. When I was teaching New Testament Exegesis for San Francisco Theological Seminary (Southern California), I would assign a biblical passage to my students. In 15 pages or so, they were to provide an exegesis of the passage, showing their understanding of the passages\u2019s linguistic basics, context, theology, etc. One year, I had a student from an ethnic minority write a paper that showed almost no attention to the original language, context, history of interpretation, and so forth. What he wrote was a \u201cfaithful interpretation\u201d from his ethnic perspective. To that extent, his paper was fascinating and insightful and full of his own faith. But it had very little to do with what the text actually meant, or what the text\u2019s author intended. When I gave this student a low grade, he was incensed. How could I suggest that his interpretation was wrong? It was, after all, his<\/em> interpretation. It reflected his experience, his insights, his worldview, his feelings. The fact that he failed to deal with the experience, insights, worldview, or feelings of the original author was irrelevant, as far as he was concerned. To use the language of today\u2019s PC(USA), his interpretation was certainly \u201cfaithful.\u201d It reflected his faith journey and relationship with God. But it had little to do with what biblical exegesis is all about, which has to do with digging out the original meaning of the ancient text. Once one has labored to discern that \u201cprincipal meaning,\u201d then one is free to make all sorts of \u201cfaithful interpretations\u201d in the work of teaching and preaching.
\nWhat the PC(USA) is saying, in effect, is that the original meaning of the text doesn\u2019t matter nearly as much as one\u2019s personal, faithful interpretation. Now I\u2019m 100% in favor of personal, faithful interpretations. But I also believe that the principal meaning of a text matters. In fact, it is the principal meaning of a text that allows us to determine whether a purportedly faithful interpretation is, in fact, faithful to the text. For years, many Christians offered faithful interpretations of Scripture that were racist. Yet these were not faithful to the text of the Bible, when properly understood, even though they reflected the faith of the interpreters. Once we make faithful interpretation the measure of exegetical skill, we have lost the ability to critique those who get it wrong. We\u2019re left simply with competing faithful interpretations, but no common ground upon which to discover a truthful interpretation.
\nThe committee offers almost no rationale for their choice to jettison \u201cprincipal meaning\u201d in favor of \u201cfaithful interpretation.\u201d They supply one comment from someone who said: \u201cRich passages of Scripture contain more than one \u2018principal meaning\u2019, and may lend themselves to several interpretations which are valid.\u201d Well, that\u2019s a theory worthy of debate, to be sure. But it\u2019s certainly not so obviously true that it deserves to be accepted without argument. Nor is it consistent with what most Presbyterians have believed for centuries. We have traditionally affirmed that even rich passages of Scripture do contain one principal meaning, though this meaning may have many nuances and multiple applications. Moreover, we have not affirmed that biblical passages may have several valid interpretations. Several interpretations, to be sure, but not several valid<\/em> ones. We have admitted that we may not be able to interpret a passage correctly. And we have realized that our best interpretations do not fully represent the text\u2019s original meaning. But, nevertheless, we have sought to discern the original meaning as accurately as possible, using the tools of historical-critical exegesis, including knowledge of the original languages. Now the PC(USA) officially expects its pastoral candidates to come up with faithful interpretations, nothing more.
\nThese changes in ordination exams are indicative of much larger issues in the PC(USA). They show how biblical interpretation has moved from a scholarly, relatively-objective discipline to a subjective matter of experience and feeling. They show how the original meaning of Scripture has lost its authority, since it either cannot be accessed or isn\u2019t relevant if it can be accessed. \u201cFaithful interpretation\u201d is enough. The changes in the exam show precisely why the PC(USA) is in such a mess over the gay\/lesbian issue. While some of us continue to believe that the Bible\u2019s original meaning is still discernable and authoritative, others in our denomination do not feel the need to anchor their theology in the bedrock of the Bible\u2019s original meaning. So, then, while some of are saying that the Bible reveals homosexual activity to be sinful, others are not especially moved by this claim, or even eager to engage with it. They are satisfied with their own \u201cfaithful interpretations\u201d of Scripture, in which they take their particular faith in God and read it into the text. Their loving, accepting God would never expect gay and lesbian people to be celibate. So, in spite of what the Bible actually says about homosexual activity, they are willing to endorse gay and lesbian behavior, and to ordain those who practice it, and even to claim that their position is biblical. It is<\/em> biblical if, by \u201cbiblical,\u201d we mean \u201caccording to my own faith.\u201d
\nI expect that nobody on the exam committee of the PC(USA) meant to make such a monumental statement about biblical authority and interpretation. And I\u2019m quite sure that nobody on this committee believes that their two changes to the ordination exam are contributing to the demise of the PC(USA). But, in my opinion, what we have seen is indicative of why this denomination is reeling, well on its way to oblivion. We have lost touch with the common ground of biblical truth on which the PC(USA) was founded. And we no longer have any reliable way of getting back to that common ground in a denomination filled with equally-valid faithful interpretations. The changes in the ordination exam add up to a placard that reads: PCUSA . . . the end is near! <\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Part 16 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited Permalink for this post \/ Permalink for this series Yesterday I began commenting on recent changes in the exegesis exam of the Presbyterian Church (USA). For the first time in ages, the PC(USA) will no longer require candidates taking the exegesis exam to…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":214,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[50],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-520","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pcusa-end-of"],"yoast_head":"\nPresbyterian Exegesis Exam Changed: Section 2 - Mark D. Roberts<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/2008\/08\/presbyterian-exegesis-exam-changed-section-2.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Presbyterian Exegesis Exam Changed: Section 2 - Mark D. Roberts\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Part 16 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited Permalink for this post \/ Permalink for this series Yesterday I began commenting on recent changes in the exegesis exam of the Presbyterian Church (USA). For the first time in ages, the PC(USA) will no longer require candidates taking the exegesis exam to…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/2008\/08\/presbyterian-exegesis-exam-changed-section-2.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Mark D. Roberts\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-27T01:01:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Mark D. Roberts\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Presbyterian Exegesis Exam Changed: Section 2 - Mark D. Roberts","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/2008\/08\/presbyterian-exegesis-exam-changed-section-2.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Presbyterian Exegesis Exam Changed: Section 2 - Mark D. Roberts","og_description":"Part 16 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited Permalink for this post \/ Permalink for this series Yesterday I began commenting on recent changes in the exegesis exam of the Presbyterian Church (USA). For the first time in ages, the PC(USA) will no longer require candidates taking the exegesis exam to…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/2008\/08\/presbyterian-exegesis-exam-changed-section-2.html","og_site_name":"Mark D. Roberts","article_published_time":"2008-08-27T01:01:10+00:00","author":"Mark D. Roberts","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/2008\/08\/presbyterian-exegesis-exam-changed-section-2.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/2008\/08\/presbyterian-exegesis-exam-changed-section-2.html","name":"Presbyterian Exegesis Exam Changed: Section 2 - Mark D. Roberts","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-27T01:01:10+00:00","dateModified":"2008-08-27T01:01:10+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/#\/schema\/person\/1ff094a57b7e41f534434b1723df3d73"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/2008\/08\/presbyterian-exegesis-exam-changed-section-2.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/2008\/08\/presbyterian-exegesis-exam-changed-section-2.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/2008\/08\/presbyterian-exegesis-exam-changed-section-2.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Presbyterian Exegesis Exam Changed: Section 2"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/","name":"Mark D. Roberts","description":"Mark D. Roberts: Thoughtfully Christian Reflections on Jesus, the Church, and the World","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/#\/schema\/person\/1ff094a57b7e41f534434b1723df3d73","name":"Mark D. Roberts","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/f2d\/f2ddf5f080861f66ea230384f9d1bab2x96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/f2d\/f2ddf5f080861f66ea230384f9d1bab2x96.jpg","caption":"Mark D. Roberts"},"description":"The Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts is a pastor, author, retreat leader, speaker, and blogger. Since October 2007 he has been the Senior Director and Scholar-in-Residence for Laity Lodge, a multifaceted ministry in the Hill Country of Texas. Before coming to Laity Lodge, he was for sixteen years the Senior Pastor of Irvine Presbyterian Church in Irvine, California (a city in Orange County about forty miles south of Los Angeles). Before his time at Irvine Pres, Mark served on the staff of the First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood as Associate Pastor of Education. (Thanks to Janel Pahl for taking the photo to the right.) Mark studied at Harvard University, receiving a B.A. in Philosophy, an M.A. in the Study of Religion, and a Ph.D. in New Testament and Christian Origins. He has taught classes in New Testament for Fuller Theological Seminary and San Francisco Theological Seminary. Mark has written several books, including No Holds Barred: Wrestling with God in Prayer (WaterBrook, 2005), Dare to Be True (WaterBrook, 2003), Jesus Revealed (WaterBrook, 2002), After \"I Believe\" (Baker, 2002), and Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (Word, 1993). His most recent book is Can We Trust the Gospels? Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (Crossway, 2007). He is currently working on a commentary on Ephesians that will be published by Zondervan in 2014. Mark writes a devotional for The High Calling of Our Daily Work, a website associated with Laity Lodge. His \"Daily Reflections\" can be viewed online or sent as a daily email. If you wish to receive this email, just visit TheHighCalling.org and sign up. Mark serves on the editorial board of Worship Leader magazine, where he publishes articles and reviews, including his regular column \"Lyrical Poetry.\" Additionally, he has published dozens of articles in leading magazines and journals. He often speaks for churches and other Christian groups, and has been interviewed on over seventy-five radio programs nationwide. Mark is married to Linda, who is a Marriage and Family Therapist, a Spiritual Director, and a retreat speaker. They have two children, Nathan and Kara.For Publicity Photos and Bio Statements for Mark, please check here. Mark's Dossier Professional History: Senior Director and Scholar-in Residence, Laity Lodge, October 2007 to present. Senior Pastor Irvine Presbyterian Church, June 1991 to September 2007 Adjunct Assistant Professor Fuller Theological Seminary, 1994 to 2007. Courses: New Testament Theology and Exegesis. Adjunct Instructor San Francisco Theological Seminary, 1995 to 2001. Courses: New Testament Greek and Exegesis Associate Pastor of Education First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood, 1987-1991 Teaching Fellow Harvard University, 1980-1983 Education: Ph.D. in the Study of Religion. Harvard University, 1992. Area: New Testament and Christian Origins M.A. in the Study of Religion Harvard University, 1984. A.B. magna cum laude in Philosophy Harvard University, 1979. Phi Beta Kappa; Danforth Fellowship Books: Can We Trust the Gospels? Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Crossway, 2007 No Holds Barred: Wrestling with God in Prayer. WaterBrook, 2005 Dare to Be True: Living in the Freedom of Complete Honesty. WaterBrook, 2003. Jesus Revealed: Know Him Better to Love Him Better. WaterBrook, 2002. After \"I Believe\": Experiencing Authentic Christian Living. Baker, 2002. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther in the Communicator's Commentary Series. Word, 1993. Contacting Mark: You can reach Mark at: E-mail: mark@markdroberts.com mroberts@laitylodge.org Phone: Laity Lodge: (830) 792-1216 Address: Laity Lodge 719 Earl Garrett Kerrville, TX 78028","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/author\/mroberts"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/520","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/214"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=520"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/520\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=520"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=520"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/markdroberts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=520"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}