Preparation for ordination in the PCA

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sean Jacob Dwyer

Puritan Board Freshman
I have a general knowledge of the process by which one may pursue ordination in the PCA. I figured it would be beneficial to hear if anyone on here has recent experience in the process. Any help as regards proper study material would help.
 
Yes I have recent experience as I examine men for ordination or licensure every quarter. There is no standard set of questions that are asked across the PCA. That is to say that there is no prescribe exam for each of the areas that men need to be examined upon. In general, however, here are some thoughts:

1. Theology - know the Standards. You don't have to have them memorized but you need to know what they teach and know where you differ. If you're going to take an exception you better make sure you're thought it through and not parrot an argument you heard from a professor that you never really examined for yourself. Know the nature of the Godhead, of Christ, of the Church, of man, etc.

2. Bible - have a good knowledge of the Scriptures more broadly I can't get more specific because there's a tendency to ask things like where you might go in the Scriptures to counsel someone with a particular sin or where certain passages are found.

3. Church history - know the major muscle movements and the issues (especially those that led to ecumenical councils) and who some of the major actors are.

4. PCA Church Hisotry - know the major players in the founding. Know what let up to the formation and about the joining and receiving.

5. Sacraments - have a good handle on what the Confessions teach on what each Sacrament represents. Know what a sacrament is. Know who the proper recipients are.

6. Church Government - know the three major diivisions of the BCO. Know what offices we have, how they're elected. How often must a session meet.

In general, don't sweat the examiners. They're men and they're probably inclined to want to help you if they see your theology is otherwise sound so if you miss specific answers then don't feel like it's the end of the world. Also, once you've turned in your written exam, go over your answers. Your oral exam is likely to focus on the areas you missed and I can't tell you how many times someone leaves something blank like "What was Apploinarianism?" only to have them not be ready for the same oral question.

Just my own thought about things too is that having a pastoral concern for theology is a big plus. Examination should not be a "stump the chump". If you know what sound theology is and what its relevance is to pastoral work that is a huge bonus. So many people I see that hold to idiosyncratic views don't ever examine the pastoral import of those ideas. They think of their exceptions as mostly an academic matter. Knowing who Barth was in a sentence or too is interesting but knowing what impact his theology has on people is more important. Take some time to reflect on that because a good Pastor needs to know how to apply what he's teaching to the lives of those he's ministering to.
 
It should be noted that before one can be ordained, they must be under care of the Presbytery, serve a 1 year internship (which should actually be longer and more thorough than most presbyteries require), and it would be good to be licensed and have opportunities to preach in various pulpits to test your gifts of preaching.
 
I was ordained as a TE about a year and a half ago in Rocky Mountain Presbytery. Obviously, the experience will greatly depend on which presbytery you pursue ordination in.

I did licensure first (January presbytery), then ordination (April presbytery). I recommend doing that. If you do well, your licensure exams can be sustained for ordination. So I did written Bible, theology, and BCO exams, then the oral committee exam, and then the floor exam for licensure. Then written, committee, and floor exams on Church History and sacraments. Breaking it up like that is helpful in my opinion, as you can get feedback before trying to prepare all of them.

As Rich said, know the Confession, know how to defend your positions. You should definitely know the basic content of each book of Scripture, where to find all of the covenants, key characters in Scripture (I got asked some pretty minor ones too, but that depends on the presbytery). I'd know some basic geography of the lands in the Bible, where to find verses related to key pastoral and theological topics, as well lists of key people and events (the 12 disciples, 12 tribes, the 10 plagues, the 7 churches of Revelation, the I Am statements of Jesus, etc).

I'd highly recommend that you study out loud with another person many times to prepare. A friend of mine who was also studying for ordination and was ordained when I was licensed studied with me for months. We would quiz each other over and over again. Simply studying by yourself may cut it for the written exams, but you need practice whipping it out verbally quickly.

If you can, I suggest meeting with the committee chair to ask what is expected, get advice, etc. If you send me a PM, I can send you the study guide used in Rocky Mountain, but of course recognize it may differ much from what is necessary in other presbyteries in the particulars.
 
I have always assumed since the adoption of the new system of evaluating "differences" with the Westminster Standards, IF a candidate has a differences with ANY statement and/or proposition of doctrine it must be stated, explained and defended in a way that makes it "minor" to the system of doctrine. Recent additions required that it be written down for the record, and made part of it.

So going into this, having ANY difference ought give one pause about being called to PCA.

Most candidates ought have no differences, or as the process allows, only "semantic" differences, which the process (wisely) provides for. The system of doctrine, subscribed to by oath, witnessed, is not an individualized mix-and-match of doctrine as some have tried to represent it as.
 
Scott1 said:
I have always assumed since the adoption of the new system of evaluating "differences" with the Westminster Standards, IF a candidate has a differences with ANY statement and/or proposition of doctrine it must be stated, explained and defended in a way that makes it "minor" to the system of doctrine. Recent additions required that it be written down for the record, and made part of it.
Click to expand...

From what I have observed, they are classified as semantic, more than semantic but not striking at the vitals, or striking at the vitals. The first two are allowed, the latter is not supposed to be.

So going into this, having ANY difference ought give one pause about being called to PCA.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that this follows, and I'm not sure that it's substantiated in our current system. Our current setup may be wrong, but within the parameters currently operating, I don't think your statement follows.

Most candidates ought have no differences, or as the process allows, only "semantic" differences, which the process (wisely) provides for. The system of doctrine, subscribed to by oath, witnessed, is not an individualized mix-and-match of doctrine as some have tried to represent it as.
Click to expand...

The reality is that most have differences, even more than semantic ones. The system approach may be in error (as it would seem you think, not sure), but I don't think it means that most should only have semantic differences. It seems that you are rejecting the middle category entirely.

Regards the relation between this and the original topic of the thread, I do wholeheartedly agree that one should study an issue very carefully before taking an exception to the Standards. The fact that we take a vow suggests we should take it seriously. And then of course the possibility that you might be grilled on it would indicate the same thing.
 
Joel is correct. It may not be what is desirable in the PCA, but Scott is completely off base with respect to practice in the PCA.
 
Perhaps I wasn't clear, or some are not assuming the same things about "differences."

For one thing, assuming that "merely semantic" are not really differences at all.


RAO 16-3 5)

a) the candidate stated that he had no differences; or
b) the court judged the stated difference(s) to be merely
semantic; or
c) the court judged the stated difference(s) to be more than
semantic, but “not out of accord with any fundamental of
our system of doctrine” (BCO 21-4); or
d) the court judged the stated difference(s) to be “out of
accord,” that is, “hostile to the system” or “strik[ing] at
the vitals of religion” (BCO 21-4).
Click to expand...

This section of the RAO describes how the evaluation of the Presbytery must be categorized, for the record, of any differences with the Westminster Standards for a teaching elder. And now, with recent amendments, the difference must also be stated in the candidates own words, too.

It's a high level of scrutiny, and rightly so, yet protecting the candidates right to evaluation of "scruples."

Of the four cases regarding "differences" with the standards, cases a), b) and c) may be admitted to the Presbytery, and d) may not. It has been astonishing to hear some argue that "d") cases can be admitted (another discussion for another thread).

I don't believe the PCA process intends a normal state of differences with the Westminster Standards by its would-be teaching elders (or any officer, ruling elder or deacon), but rather that being the exceptional case. It's not a mix-and-match system in a confessional system. Granted it's anecdotal, but I don't see most ruling elders and deacons stating differences, it seems to be about 50/50 with teaching elders....

Looking at it that way, we are dealing with "minor" v. "major" differences, something akin to the historic presbyterian system of scruples ("minor") vs. any other difference creating potential harm for the flock, to be protected by not admitting that man to office in the confessional system.

The point being, if someone is trying to come into the PCA to have authority, and with differences with the Westminster Standards, they ought do so with with great care, why they would have spiritual authority there, if they really don't agree, or don't believe what is confessed.

The oath is a very serious thing.
 
Scott1 said:
Of the four cases regarding "differences" with the standards, cases a), b) and c) may be admitted to the Presbytery, and d) may not. It has been astonishing to hear some argue that "d") cases can be admitted (another discussion for another thread).
Click to expand...
The issue is not that d) "cases" are admitted, it's your characterization of the process as if it's clinical. The examination process is dealing not with bare propositions but with men - real men. The reality is that even Ministers are still in a process of growth in their apprehension of the system of doctrine (as are the rest of the Presbyters). You're dealing with men who may be repeating some differences they get from a Professor and never have been challenged to think through. The Candidates and Credentials Committee in our Presbytery has been named the Leadership Development Comitttee and the aim was toward the end of ensuring that the "leadership development" part should be more central. There is always the aspect of examination because one cannot abandon the requirement to ensure the orthodoxy of a man but rarely do we run across men where overall orthodoxy is in question. These are often men that Churches have known for years or they have gone through some process of vetting by the Church they're coming to. I've only seen one case in 2 years where a man came shockingly under-equipped for examination and the Church withdrew him for consideration (it was for a potential licentiate).

This may sound odd to those who think that examination is all about some clinical body exam where you're not interested in the person so much as the function of organs and the like, but most TE's and RE's are actually desirous that a man would pass. They don't go into the process hoping to find something wrong. You're dealing with mostly earnest men who have spent a great deal of time and sacrificed a lot to come to the ministry in a still (relatively speaking) very conservative denomination.

Thus, the first thing I try to do with men on oral examinations is to put them at ease. They're men, not cases. When we come to their differences, if we find that their reasons are weak then we'll push back and I've even had men withdraw differences when the weakness of their difference is exposed. Other times, they'll have to think through it a bit more deeply.

The point is that it doesn't do much to opine about what the process "looks and feels" like unless you've at least attended a number of Presbytery meetings to see how stated differences are handled by the Presbytery. I'm sure each Presbytery handles it differently but we're always dealing with men and not cases and so there's a sense of rooting for the man not from the sense that he won't get shot down if he can't pass theological muster but that most are hoping he does well. Finding a man who has a difference that is an exception that strikes at the vitals of religion is arrived at with great sadness and not clinical detachment.
 
Scott1 said:
I don't believe the PCA process intends a normal state of differences with the Westminster Standards by its would-be teaching elders (or any officer, ruling elder or deacon), but rather that being the exceptional case. It's not a mix-and-match system in a confessional system. Granted it's anecdotal, but I don't see most ruling elders and deacons stating differences, it seems to be about 50/50 with teaching elders....
Click to expand...

I'm not sure on what basis you're making that determination, based on our current system. I don't know that it really determines that one way or the other. One could argue that because of the different delineations of stated differences that it expects there to be regular differences taken. Whether that is a good thing or not is another topic.

Simply recognizing that many candidates will have differences does not mean that it's a "mix and match system." For example, I have several times heard the exception taken that hymn-singing is also allowed, not just psalms. It was judged merely semantic. Another TE took an exception to the WLC's suggestion that casting lots could be an acceptable contemporary means of making a decision (though this last GA was the first time I saw it roughly advocated). It was judged more than semantic, but not striking at the vitals.

The way you're making it sound is as if anyone has any stated differences, he should question whether he's called. That just doesn't reflect our current practice.

These recent changes (requiring everything to be put in the record in the candidate's own words) help there to be transparency and clarity in evaluating the differences, which is I think a good thing.
 
Joel,
If you wish to discuss the merits of the present PCA process for declaring and having evaluated differences with the Westminster Standards, that might be helpful for another thread.
But this thread is not intended to debate that, it's about preparing this dear brother for what to expect, and what care must be taken, IF he has any theological difference with any statement and/or proposition of doctrine in the Westminster summary of the doctrine of Scripture.
 
Personally, I would counsel anyone who has a known difference with the Standards to stop and meet with an elder to discuss them (with the elder explaining the true Westminster view and why the candidate should agree with the Divines convincingly). :) So that's what I tell you Sean. Do you have any differences with the Standards?
 
Ask Mr. Religion said:
On the exceptions discussion, this is worth a look:

View attachment 3673


Here is a licensure examination resource:
View attachment 3674
Click to expand...

I've seen most of those with the same arguments. In every case our committee would have pushed back on some of the poorly articulated (or misunderstood) objections. In other words, the goal of the committee should not be: "Oh, well, if that's what you believe even though you haven't really thought through it very deeply..." but to try to see if the candidate really has wrestled with what the Standards are actually saying AND that he has strong exegetical (and not merely "it seems to me") objections to something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top