Today marked one less hoop to jump through, hopefully. The Church Polity Ordination Exam was today, and it was the last of 4 (Church Polity, Theology, Worship & Sacraments, and Exegesis) ordination exams PC(USA)ers have to take – and pass – in order to get ordained. I say hopefully because I thought this exam was pretty straight-forward and simple. That post-exam feeling can be good – or it can mean that I totally didn’t get the questions. I’m hoping that it means I just did well and my Presbyterian Polity course at Columbia really paid off.
I’m really not a fan of these ordination exams. While it’s just one way to “test” to see if you’re ready to be a minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA), an incredible amount of weight is put on these timed exams. You have three hours for each of the Church Polity, Theology and Worship & Sacraments exams, and you get about a week for the take-home exegesis exam. If you fail, you fail – and you can’t move on in the ordination process until you’ve passed. Let alone the fact that some people aren’t good test-takers, it is an incredibly inauthentic process. You basically just have to say what you think the readers/graders of the exams are going to want to hear. So whether or not you believe what you write, and whether or not you’d actually act in such a way when you actually get out into the real world of ministry, you still have to “pretend” to be a good, Book-of-Order-abiding Presbyterian Inquirer/Candidate for ministry. And then you have to get a good grader. If any of your own “personal” theology or thoughts on ministry slip through your 40+ pages of writing for the four exams, and your reader disagrees with you, they can mark you down. One reader told me that it also really depends on the reader’s mood. While I’m sure they are told to be as objective as possible – one could argue whether that really happens.
Should we get rid of ordination exams? I don’t know. Maybe. Some might then argue that we wouldn’t know if people know enough “Reformed theology” or if they are proficient enough in their Greek or Hebrew (as if most will ever continue to use it once in parish ministry). Shouldn’t the process be such that relationships are formed between Inquirers/Candidates and their CPMs (Committee on Preparation for Ministry) where the committees should know that anyway because of their history with each person in the process. I suppose that’s easier for me to say when my Presbytery currently only has 2 Inquirers/Candidates going through the process.
There must be a better way. Anyone have any ideas?
About Adam Walker Cleaveland
This may be a more comical than practical suggestion, but it highlights another problem with the ord exam process. I just took the ords at Pittsburgh Seminary (still writing my exegesis, in fact). After one of the tests a friend commented to me that there must be a better way to test pastoral care abilities than to have us write responses to comments made by hypothetical church members. His idea: hire a bunch of improv actors to come in and play disgruntled, heretical, or uneducated church members/elders and then test our pastoral skills in real time based on our ability to minister to them on the spot.
Obviously not practical, but it shows the other problem with the current ord exam process: how can written tests be accurate measures of pastoral ability?
To be fair, if a candidate is clearly suited for ordination and doesn’t pass the ords after a few tries, the presbytery can give oral exams … I believe our presbytery is doing that with a candidate. There are provisions. And the ords are just one part of the process in assessing one’s readiness for ordination. For those who may not know … the exams are read by two readers … if they agree on the pass/fail, that’s the grade. If they don’t agree it goes to a third reader. None of the readers know what other readers have said about the exam.
Ideally, relationships should be formed between CPM and the candidate … the ords are just another step in the process … which includes this relationship, acquiring an M.Div., being examined by the presbytery, preaching for the presbytery, and much more.
Don’t get me wrong … I am convinced that pastoral readiness will need to be assessed by different means and different criteria as the church emerges. I would question the whole … three years of seminary … Greek and Hebrew requirements, etc. But, unless a pastor is starting a new church, most of our current congregations still need/expect this kind of pastor with these skills.
I took my ords 20 years ago (yeah, I’m that old) … and we complained about them then, too. Now I see their value … most of those who cannot pass the ordination exams with a few tries really don’t have the skills to be good pastors.
So, as we think about the emerging church … what skills, requirements, assessments, criteria, should be used in determining ordination of pastors?
As a former CPM moderator and ord exam reader, I echo both Adam’s dissatisfaction with the process and Wendy’s defense of it.
No, a timed, written exam is not the ultimate measure of one’s readiness for ordained ministry of the Word and Sacrament. But it is one measure. I think the important question is, “what do the exams measure?” If, as Adam suggests, they only measure candidates’ abilities to say what they think readers want to hear, then they’re worthless (regardless of how much ministry consists of saying what people want to hear).
But I think they measure more than that. They measure your ability to listen, to reason within the broad Reformed theological tradition, and to express yourself clearly and pastorally. I never, ever, marked a paper down because I was in a bad mood, and I can assure you that none of my colleagues did either. Papers get marked down because they fail to address the question (which, by the way, was developed through a long and intentional collaborative process), because they demonstrate a lack of theological depth, or because they are un-pastoral in their tone.
After three years of ordained ministry I’m surprised at how much fruitful ministry depends on exactly those things that the tests assess. By themselves, ord exams are a bad tool. But without them, the ordination process is lacking something important.
As someone who recently survived the ords, I have a lot of thoughts on the subject.
Personally, I didn’t find them that bad. I passed each of them on the first try. I say this not to brag, but to make the point that my criticism of the process isn’t sour grapes – I manipulated the process quite well.
I personally don’t think they assess someone’s pastoral ability at all – you would never launch into a two page long lecture with four people during the meeting, so the premise is bad. Beyond that, I actually think they do a decent job.
The problem is that a lot of people who pass them with ease are people like me – organized people who write in bullet points that are easy to grade with a rubric. I’ve read a lot of my friends responses who failed and the reader said that the question wasn’t answered directly. In my opinion, the response didn’t fit the grading rubric, but was good none the less.
My final critique comes from my own experience. On my exegesis exam one reader gave me a 5, the other a 3, and commented that I “barely passed”. That’s just no right – one reader gives me the highest possible mark, the other says I barely passed. She didn’t like that I included a survey of the disputes books of Paul in a word study, and she disagreed with my parsing of one verb (she was right on that one). I know there is a corrective built into the system, so had she failed me a third reader would have been brought in, but it exposes a problem.
My suggestion? The Lutheran church has similar exams, but the grades of the readers are only recommendations to the committees. Keep the system the same, even the questions, but have the results reviewed by the CPMs, who they decide whether a person passed or failed a given exam. That way the standardized exam stays in place but the impersonal tone of them goes away.
I too have recently “survived” ordination exams and have many thoughts on the subject. In fact, since I took the exams I have helped others that were struggling to pass them. Just one thought…
While I didn’t realize it at the time, the ords provide a testing for what I believe might be the most important qualification for ministry, the ability to listen. Most people fail the exam (I have been told by readers), because they fail to answer the question being asked. It’s not because they express an unorthodox answer, as many seminarians think including me at the time, but because they don’t offer an answer to the question being asked. One can always say, “this is what the Presbyterian church believes” but this is what I believe. That’s an acceptable response to almost any question. The “church” just wants to know if you know what others believe and can listen and dialog with them, not just talk “at” people about what you think.
The ability to listen to congregants, colleagues, and especially the Holy Spirit is probably the most qualifying thing we should test for future ministers. Ministers who just “spout off” at the first impulse not only have a hard time answering the ords questions, they also have a hard time in ministry. In fact, in my opinion it’s what’s wrong with the church today- people talking “at” people instead of “with” people.
Just my thoughts…
I enthusiastically agree with Chris. The exam answer is doomed that, right from the start, sets out a theological treatise irrespective of the situation described and the response required. That the exam questions are framed as “responses” instead of “answers” is an important feature. Answers can only be right or wrong; responses can be better or worse, depending on how closely the responder attends to the situation. In short, as Chris said, how well they listen.
I too share all the concerns about the exams and have long thought that a better way to go about the process would be to write the exams and then defend them orally before the CPM’s. I think this eliminates the often arbitrary subjectivity that comes along with the grading process and re-emphasizes the relational role of the CPM. Of course, this means that the CPM’s have to be more than “gatekeepers” which is probably a whole new can of worms!
Although I passed all of my exams on the first try, I too had an experience where my worship exam went to a third grader. The first grader gave me a five and the second a two. The only comment from the second grader as to why she failed me was, “I don’t like the fact that you used the word “rules.” I had used the word once in passing to a parishioner who wanted to take communion by himself at his home on Monday since he worked on Sundays. I opened my “pastoral” response to him by saying something like, “We have some rules regarding how we take communion…” and then went on to explain over a couple of pages the importance of community, relationships, reading of God’s Word, etc. That one mention of one word in passing was the only reason given for why this person failed me. So it went to a third grader who gave me a four.
I share all of that, not because I’m bitter or can’t let go, but merely to illustrate the frustrating subjectivity that is built into our process right now. I would have loved to defend my answer to that particular grader and am sure I would have learned a great deal more from her regarding why she felt the way she did. Both of us could have been edified in that conversation which is why I think this process has to become more personal.
The problem becomes when the question isn’t clear – which happens too often. The questions can be so broad and general that you don’t know what they were looking for.
Example: Theology in September 2003:
A college student poses a question to you: “I know that Christians talk about God as Trinity. In
addition to the Trinity, what do Christians believe about God?”
1. Answer the student’s question, articulating a Christian ecumenical understanding of the
doctrine of God, using the Nicene Creed and/or the Apostle’s Creed.
2. Answer the student’s question, articulating one (1) or more of the distinctively Reformed
emphases of the doctrine of God, using and discussing at least one (1) citation from each
of two (2) different documents, other than the Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed, in
The Book of Confessions (e.g. 0.000).
Now, one might assume that they wanted you to talk about the Trinity more in depth, or did they want you to talk about the specific attributes shared by God. As it turns out, they wanted attributes, and any further discussion of the Trinitarian aspect of God wasn’t deemed “not answering the question”.
The real pastoral art is not answering people’s questions – it’s getting to the motivation behind the question. Because how you answer the question depends almost entirely on the motivation behind the question. I find that the first questions that I’m asked are seldom the real question.
The ordination process doesn’t test that ability whatsoever.
I would have some reservations about an oral test, because I know people already get really tense about the written. I can’t imagine how tense people would get asking for responses in person? The Methodist system does this and that’s what I hear from my Methodist brothers and sisters-not enough time to think through answers.
That tension is why I think most people miss the question being asked. In Brian’s example. The words “in addition” throw people. However, maybe only because it’s theology and timed? If someone asked you “in addition” to your Ferrari, what other cars do you have? Would you then talk about your Ferrari (well actually-maybe you would-if I had a Ferrari I would probably talk about it all the time-bad example) Still, we get tripped up by our nerves and launch at anything that seems remotely familiar. Trinity? Oh yes, I know that one… go!
The good news Doug is that the system allowed a correction to what was clearly a grader who was off the mark. Your answer must have been good to get a five and a four in the end…
To Brian’s example, I have to disagree. That was my exam. I remember being stunned by the question, thinking, “well isn’t this the forest for the trees?” After spending the summer going over Atonement, Providence, Election, and the like, the exam had the gall to ask me about . . . God.
The “art” of pastoring may or may not consist in getting at people’s motivations. Whatever it is, a written exam won’t get at a candidate’s skill in all things pastoral. That’s why there are four different exams, measuring competency in four different areas.
The example Brian lists assesses theological competence. It’s concerned about a candidate’s ability to competently–that is responsibly, broadly, and pastorally–talk about God. That question was very clear: talk about God to a young adult without, and leave off the trinity.
What else do you say about God? And from whence in the church’s theological heritage do you draw those affirmations? I think it’s an important thing to assess.
Rocky, as someone else who had Brian’s question, I don’t think it’s too clear. Do I write these things ‘in addition to the trinity’ as in, include the trinity and other attributes of God, or does in addition mean ‘in exclusion’ of the trinity discuss other attributes of God.
It may not seem like a big deal but you can’t ask a follow up question to clarify!
I would have loved to answer that question, but because of the ambiguity (in a situation where answering the wrong question means taking the test over and delaying ordination and call process), I went with the other because the question was extremely clear.
The sad thing is that in this instance, changing ‘in addition to the trinity’ to ‘excluding the trinity’ would have cleared it up completely.
While studying for these exams, I seem to remember several where it felt like the question was not clear. Can we grade the questions?
Having said all that, I’m completely for ordination exams. I think they test a pastor’s ability to listen, think, and respond using the language of the community’s faith. It would be nice to have the CPMs of respective students as the graders.
And again, it’s only one facet of the call process.
Great discussion on the ordination exam process and clearly there needs to be something in place. Just to further respond to Chris…yes, an oral exam would perhaps be more intimidating but again I think it would only work if the candidate and CPM had worked hard at building a relationship. If folks had to stand in front of the presbytery and defend their exam…yes, that would be pretty intense and only a few of us masochists would probably enjoy that process!
However, if there could be an oral defense in front of the CPM, answering questions from people who you know love and care for you and who are there to help you discern God’s call; I think it might be less intimidating than one might initially think.
Again, all this depends on CPM’s taking their role as spiritual advisors seriously rather than simply acting as gatekeepers. That, of course, would be a huge change at least in my experience.
One other thought just occurred to me as well…You know, we are being ordained to PREACH the Gospel and therefore should be at least competent to give a public defense of what and why we believe. Is it intimidating? Yes. But isn’t a little “fear of the Lord” healthy anytime we approach the pulpit to preach the Word of God or in the case of ord exams, defend our answers? Shouldn’t we follow Peter and always be prepared to give an answer for the hope that lies within? Just some random thoughts that are bouncing around my brain…
Soli Deo Gloria!
Doug
Excellent point Doug. I have changed my mind. Maybe an oral exam, with the provisions of a trained CPM to administer such an exam would be good. I do agree that oral skills for a preacher are very important. To be able to explain one’s views in something beyond a couple pages might be the solution.
Great stream of dialogue.
Good conversation! I’ve mused on their utility myself. Having a depth of knowledge in each of the primary areas of our faith has proven pretty essential in my first few years of ministry. If I wasn’t an effective theological resource person for my community, then I’d be doing a pretty wretched job of pastoring them. Having some mechanism by which the church insures that Ministers of Word and Sacrament are competent in those core areas is vital.
That said, isn’t that what…um..seminary is supposed to do? I’ve never quite understood why the successful completion of graduate level coursework in Hebrew, Greek, Liturgics, Reformed Theology, Old/New Testaments, and Presbyterian Polity wouldn’t do the trick just as well.
The ords…well…they didn’t hurt, I suppose. But I don’t see them doing anything further than insuring that pastors have some academic capacity, which seems, at best, duplicative.
My CPM committee did a pretty decent and thorough job of examining my faith and my grasp of the essentials of Scripture and the Reformed Tradition during the process of Inquiry and Candidacy. I agree with the meme that’s surfacing here–using the more conversational approach on theological and scriptural issues would be a far richer way to explore pastoral competence than written exams.
I for one would rather be examined orally. I am bad at sitting exams. I also got all of my exams in Spanish this year! It was bueno.
The exams have got to go. They’re ridiculous.
I have always felt like these exams were a complete and utter farce. Some person in Oklahoma, whom I have never met, is able to deduce from my handwriting sample the worthiness of my ordination. When we were going through the process there was a 25% failure rate on each exam. When I looked at the students who failed and those who were able to pass I was mystified. Some of our best students were doing retakes. Then I realized it was the average and mediocre who were able to parrot the party line so that the examiners could understand that the canidate was writing what they had on their cheat sheets.
It is disgraceful to limit the talent and creativity of those who are to be our ministers. I mean we still expect our ministers to use the 19th century Historical Critical method. Then we wonder why so many find the Presbyterian church irrelevant. What a waste of time and talented minds.
As you can tell I have strong opinions on this subject.
My question continually has to do with the effectiveness of the examination process to measure certain outcomes. Is there data on this? Are there steps to account for inter-rater reliability? The entire assessment of the written portions does not seem objectively valid from an assessment perspective. Has the PCUSA considered using portfolio assessments like what we find in education? There are many ways to do authentic assessment that is educationally sound, but the PCUSA continues with a clearly invalid and unsystematic way of assessing readiness.
Regarding the rubric mentioned above, I have never seen one. Has anyone seen the assessment instrument that is used before you take the exam? Not to make that available is not educationally sound at all.
And even when you get passed this, you still have to dish out responses to your Presbytery which do have to conform to the answers people what to hear rather than the answers that you think are theologically valid and well articulated to meet the needs of the world. The process needs a more valid set of processes since these are such big life changing decisions.
There have been many thoughts about this in the blogosphere over the past few days and I even jumped in… Clearly on the minds of many Presbyterians right now.
I think the ordination exam process is obsolete and ineffectual for measuring a candidates true readiness for the ministry (as well as redundant….I got an “A” in Greek….I also passed the Greek exam….so….great….what does that OVER prove?!) Seriously.
I believe that ANY form of standardized testing is actually just a measure of one’s ability to take tests.
I am about to take the Theology and Worship and Sacraments exams again next week. I have dyslexia. My writing process takes TIME. These exams are an anxiety inducing nightmare. I have the knowledge. That’s not the issue! If I could characterize these exams from a Meyers Briggs perspective, I would say that they are an “ST” approach to a predominantly “NF” profession. The two just don’t jive.