Comments for PCCEC clarifies exegesis exam changes at http://pres-outlook.net , comment 1 to 2 out of 2 comments http://pres-outlook.net Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:32:12 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://pres-outlook.net/reports-a-resources/presbyterian-heritage-articles/8010-pccec-clarifies-exegesis-exam-changes.html#comment-4150 As a Presbyterian pastor who has read (i.e. graded) the ordination exams (including this year's version), I very much appreciate the faithful work of the PCCEC. While some may dismiss the recent changes as “PC”, I would suggest that, before casting the first stone, they take part in the process and try to understand the complex nature of testing for ordination standards. It is, in many ways, a thankless task that will never please everyone. Much like the standardized tests in education (e.g. SATs), there is no perfect way to test for a candidate’s knowledge and understanding. 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. - Mark Burnham Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:06:25 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/reports-a-resources/presbyterian-heritage-articles/8010-pccec-clarifies-exegesis-exam-changes.html#comment-4145 The reasoning of the PCCEC is unfortunate. It strikes me as mostly PC. It sounds like we are simply lowering the standards regarding the original languages and changing them when it comes to exegesis. The examples of allegorical interpretation seem weak and have historically been rejected by Reformed Theologians. Examiners can use sensible discretion. To choose some recent trends in biblical scholarship as our new standard is misguided and a manifestation of the relativism of our culture. Each does what is right in their own eyes. - John Stone Thu, 16 Oct 2008 03:29:17 +0100