Ordination Exam = How Well You Converse with Calvin?

Adam at pomomusings asks this question about the test for what is Reformed today:

Why have we made the thoughts of 16th century theologians the litmus test for those of us in the 21st century.

Read the inspiration for the post here.

From the point of seminary education you have to learn good foundations such as Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, Kant, etc. because what follows form them are largely responses to their initial thoughts which were revolutionary for different reasons. Barth, especially with his doctrine of God, functions the same way as does Kierkegaard and so forth. So I understand it from the education side of the spectrum at a Protestant seminary.

But from the ordination side I too have the same question. I remember that I had a theodicy question on my ordination exams. I knew what the packaged answer was – it was going to do with the three attributes of God and how they are related to the existence of evil in the world leading to some formulation of a pedagogical theory, etc. But as always it was a pastoral question and I still have to toss out any of the reformers' ideas of how to deal with human suffering because they are not helpful. So I referred to Simone Weil's understanding of affliction and relied largely on Jewish philosophers' discussions of the Holocaust (e.g. The Tremendum) to ground how I would respond to this person's human pain. I passed it with the lowest passing rating possible and the reader gave some B.S. comment about Simone Weil's existentialism (which was completely wrong) and how she was a Catholic (as if that matters).

At my trials in front of the Presbytery I was given the question about infant baptism. I addressed it first by saying that the New Testament practice was adult baptism and that this was a perfectly acceptable and even a more meaningful way to address what baptism actually means in response to faith. That is, adult baptism clearly addresses the function of baptism in a more theologically sound way than infant baptism which has for the most part become a ceremony to enjoy a new baby in the family of God. This is surely a worthy thing, but it's not the best possible answer to address why we baptize rather than just welcome babies in a formal way. I was also thinking that they argued for infant baptism because it was probably too cold in the unheated naves of these churches and a trickle of water was easier to do. There are social conditions that prompt ritual behavior as well and we must address these in our current practices that might not do well to adopt practices that were formed under often radically different social conditions. But I skipped that for obvious reasons. I could tell the questioner was getting uneasy about my line of response, so I quickly amended a loud BUT… and gave him the answer about circumcision blah blah blah… not because I thought it was a theologically good answer, but because I knew that he wanted me to assure him I was not Arminian or Baptist, I could reflect on Total Depravity, etc. So the pressure in both cases was to give answers I thought were theologically outdated, not helpful in pastoral function, and in both cases not what I considered to be theologically sound arguments just to pass the test. I bucked the system in the first case, I towed the line in the second.

The way that Presbyterians are assessed as pastoral theologians does not fit the realities that pastors must face in the "real world" and that was where I lost favor with the System. Now I chickened out and just wanted a job where I could make an income and not fight with people over this stuff every day because I was clearly not going to get any support from my Presbytery (who I continue to look at knowing that theologically I could not be any more different than a Catholic at Wheaton). I just did not have the courage or strength to fight the thought police at that time. But something has to change with how the church addresses how we contextualize 500 year old Reformed theology and actually continue to reform it rather than merely recapitulate it to maintain the identity of what is considered to be "orthodox".

How a candidate for the ministry is assessed in terms of the examination process needs to be re-assessed. Does the exam measure outcomes that are valuable indicators of one's ability to handle theological issues in the ministry? Does it allow enough for one to flex classical Reformed identity to the needs of this world and this culture? Does it allow for a young Presbyterian pastor to say in the exam that Calvin and Luther were both dead wrong with their approach to a given issue and here is how we should reform that idea against what we now know about scripture and what we know about our world? It seems that it is technically allowed for, but certainly not encouraged since giving a "Reformed response" does one best if they tow the same old line. It just seems that we have these spankin' new wine skins – as flawed as they are – and continue to be forced to fill them with old wine that is more like vinegar in the mouths of the spiritually bankrupt in many cases at this point.

No related posts.