A year after the winter 2023 exegesis exam inspired debate, calls to action and apologies, Presbyterian leaders continue to ponder larger, far-reaching questions:
Have the exegesis exams, a required step in the ordination process for pastors, taken on an outsized place in the ordination process? Do the anonymous and ostensibly objective exams act as stand-ins for a candidate’s competencies beyond their intended function, diminishing other aspects of preparation that should be given more weight?
“The whole conversation last year has raised for us something we’re going to be working on at our national meeting this year. Does the structure of the exams still reflect the best way to assess readiness for ministry in today’s church?” said Robert Lowry, chair of the Presbyteries’ Cooperative Committee on the Examination of Candidates (PCC), the body that writes the exams.
“We’ve put too much pressure on our candidates by making the exams into our de facto gatekeepers.” — Robert Lowry
The winter ’23 exam used Judges 19, the Levite’s Concubine, which is known as a “text of terror” for its violent and misogynistic imagery and could be triggering for those who have been victims of such acts. The subsequent controversy sparked questions about the larger process of ordination.
Presbyterian leaders are still exploring how to move forward to ensure the exam process meets the needs of candidates, presbyteries, and the ministry settings where candidates will eventually serve.
Lowry said the incident revealed ways that insider culture has clouded the PCC’s understanding of how test-takers and presbyteries perceive the exams. For example, many critics stated that candidates were forced to undergo a difficult emotional experience in total solitude out of fear that their exam would be discarded. This led the committee to publicly state that exam-takers are permitted to seek pastoral care and other forms of social support during the exam process, as long as they do not ask for help answering the questions themselves.
“[Exams] are only designed to be a snapshot in time of readiness for ministry,” Lowry said. “We’ve put too much pressure on our candidates by making the exams into our de facto gatekeepers. So we’re asking them to take an exam for a reason other than why the exam was written. It also leads us as a denomination to depersonalize the assessment process.”
The experience has also led the PCC to consider how questions are written and how texts are chosen for the exegesis exam. They reviewed pending exams and did not identify any upcoming tests with potentially sensitive material.
Elana Keppel Levy, a pastor, scholar and assault survivor, created a petition last winter asking the PCC to apologize, which the committee eventually did. It also asked for additional oversight to be implemented in the process. She said the chosen text went beyond the scope of what an exam can reasonably hold.
“Part of leadership is discerning when to engage certain texts.” — Elana Keppel Levy
“I am a ‘read the Bible from cover-to-cover’ person,” said Keppel Levy. “We don’t shy away from those questions and problems. That does not mean every story is appropriate for every situation! Part of leadership is discerning when to engage certain texts.”
Beyond the exams, Keppel Levy said the incident demonstrated how many religious leaders are under-equipped to understand trauma and care for survivors. She explained that trauma “entirely changes your life in ways that are difficult to work through, difficult to express, and that a lot of people just plain don’t understand.” That’s why some exam takers may have been unable to complete the exam or suffered mentally and emotionally afterward. In its apology, the PCC formally acknowledged that the exam caused such harm and asked for forgiveness.
Paul Hooker said one way to improve the exam process in multiple respects is to make the process more localized, with Committees on Preparation for Ministry (CPM) taking a more central role. Per the Book of Order, CPMs have the right to create alternative pathways to evaluate specific areas of ministry, but he said these routes are underutilized. Hooker, who retired as a professor at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary in 2021, has extensive experience reading, writing and evaluating ordination exams. He echoes Lowry in noting that the exams were never meant to be the sole or even primary mechanism for preparing and evaluating candidates.
One way to improve the exam process in multiple respects is to make the process more localized, with Committees on Preparation for Ministry (CPM) taking a more central role. — Paul Hooker
“You can’t just blow [the exams] off, but a presbytery that has a candidate who is struggling or who finds a particular exam difficult to pass has the right to say, ‘We’re going to do something else as a way to have this student demonstrate readiness,’” Hooker said. He urged presbyteries to “Take the power given to them by the polity and say, ‘We are the ones who get to decide if this individual is ready,’” rather than passing responsibility to the denomination.
A more relational process, one where exam readers come from the examinee’s presbytery of care, would allow for greater thoughtfulness around an individual’s gifts for ministry. It would also allow for consideration of individual circumstances, from home environment to trauma history, that may influence an exam outcome. That could have downsides, Keppel Levy said, noting that CPMs do not always treat all candidates equally, but she agrees that more willingness from CPMs to embrace creative solutions could help many candidates.
To shift the process so that the exams achieve their intended goals will take big-picture thinking of the kind the PCC is undertaking, Hooker said.
“We need to take some of the burden off of [exam results], redesign the process, and redesign the assumptions around the exams themselves, especially the Bible exegesis exam,” he said.
Lowry shares the view of Hooker and Keppel Levy: more collaboration is key to creating better outcomes. The PCC is continuing to engage with other bodies, including the Committee on Theological Education and the Association of Mid-Council Leaders. Those conversations are already bearing fruit, such as the offering of additional training for CPMs who have candidates taking exams in a particular cycle. He hopes steps like these will create a process that is more effective and more pastoral.
“The exams were created for the church, not the church for the exams.” — Robert Lowry
“The exams were created for the church, not the church for the exams,” Lowry said. “We’ve got to keep the realities of parish ministry in front of us, as well as the well-being of the people we’re assessing in front of us. Those things are often challenging to balance, but not impossible.”
