I liked taking them well enough that eventually I spent 11 years as a reader. If the continue with the "advance placement" format, I suspect people will continue to hate themes they have the past two years.

Key to success is Answer the question asked.

I think having a common baseline test for ordination is a good thing. Long gone at the days when regional or "party" differences were allowed to play a role in grading. The AP format ensures that all are graded the same.

Lawyers, doctors, nurses, all sorts of professionals take competency exams before being certified, why not for clergy as well?

A related question (both to this post and the one about clergy and buildings) is: "Is the priesthood a 'profession' in the same way as medicine, law, etc... are professions?" In other words, do we think of ordained ministry as a "trade" in which we simply need to know the required skills or do we think of it as a profession that requires the advanced degree that we currently do require?

Technically, showing "proficiency" in the seven canonical areas doesn't necessarily require an M.Div. And if we're going to gradually phase out full-time clergy, then requiring a full three-year master's program for the priesthood becomes excessive. Similarly, if we think of the priesthood as a trade rather than a profession, the GOEs (at least in their current form) don't make any sense. It's the Episcopal Church equivalent of the bar exam.

Yes, ditto: Answer the question asked. Take the time to understand the question first, then map out your response, even if all you have time for is a quick skeletal outline.

Beyond that...

This is probably at best an elementary-level observation, but what took me by surprise about the GOEs - and continued to stymie me in reports from subsequent years - was the care of balance their designers took in ordering a test that was both an opportunity to shine when asked about general principles and, simultaneously, to stink it up when asked about something specific that wasn't on my seminary's considerable course of study. I remember the Scripture question being generous and the Moral Theology question feeling downright unfair, but I'm sure that's because it wasn't anything in which I'd had any sort of training so as to be able to speak with anything approaching intelligence.

So was it my very best chance to shine out with all my knowledge? No; and sometimes it felt just the smallest bit like hazing; but I did manage through it, fully understanding that as Michael says, some sort of competency examination should take place. There were subsequent interviews to test subsequent knowledge (e.g., the history of the particular diocese in which I would serve). None of it was perfect, but my sense now is that it helped reveal the general location of the baseline for knowing whether people had been using their study and writing time to actually study and write.

In the end, out of all such things, the instrument most helpful for me so far is the final evaluation from my CPE supervisor - a document written with subtlety, humor, and insight by Will Spong, whose name continues to inspire so many to do their best in ministry.

Torey Lightcap

I'm in the midst of the GOEs - just finished my first day. They seemed fine to me (though ask again after I do moral theology). I was surprised (and pleased) at the way the questions seemed to strike a balance between synthesizing old material and provoking new thought.

And as someone headed in this direction, I like the idea that clergy have to show some minimal level of knowledge.

-Jesse Zink

...though I should also add to my last comment that I can think of about six dozen (at a minimum) things I'd rather be doing this week than cooped up and staring at my computer for hours on end.

-Jesse

@Jesse ..... Blessings on you as you move through the exams.

@Torey ... Great comment.

I think there are two levels of competency people can demonstrate in GOEs and other places.

The first is competency with the Core or Central part of each of the disciplines. Just as Karl barth could summarize his Systematic Theology as "Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so," so too should every person coming out of seminary be able to succinctly describe the Core of each discipline.

In Bible for example, seminarians should be able to write, in under one page, the basic story arc of both Hebrew and Christian Scripture. I think they should be able to wrap that core with at least one or two more levels of detail that might include a grasp of the major sagas from Abraham to David, The shape of the Law, the main issues the prophets raised, the exile and return. In Christian Scripture they should be able to tell the arc of Jesus's life and passion, distinguishing the flavors of the Gospels, the arc of Paul, and the Johannine materials.

We should all have that at our finger tips most of the time.

I am sure we can all identify the core needs of the other disciplines.

The second level of competency are the "edges" of the disciplines, the new and emerging ideas that are shaping how the disciplines are growing.

For theology, perhaps, that would include being able to connect feminist or glbt, or post modern "orthodox" theologies to the core elements of systematic theologies. Again ponder the edges of those seven disciplines. OWS for example could leave to discussion in most of the 7 areas.

Here's the problem as I see it. Seminary faculty may not be as interested in teaching the core as in teaching the edges. They have so mastered the core that it can be boring to go over it year after year with NOOBs. Much more interesting is where their own passions have taken them in their disciplines, but that is usually too arcane (in an educational sense) for those who need the basics.

Perhaps what we need is a Seminary Boot Camp approach in which postulants are crammed with the core by people who love teaching it and then allowed to make connections with the edges that are taught by the main faculty. I am willing to wager that in seven weeks of immersive study we could produce seminarians with core proficiency in each area. Then off to seminary to add additional layers of knowledge.

Michael, What if thinking can take place, if it is going to take place, only at the edge rather than at the so-called core? I am referring to Martin Heidegger's What Is Called Thinking? (which should have been translated as What Summons to Thinking?) Paraphrasing the reading material may betray the complexity of a disclipline. Rethinking it new contexts, however uncertain the the conclusions, might be a better test of a candidate. I would rather have a seminary professor teach at a high level than merely offer a so-called survey. Knowledge should not be reduced to the merely practical.

Gary Paul Gilbert

@Gary I realize that people learn from all different directions. But we are preparing people to be transmitters of the faith, so I think we need some common ground from which we all work our edges.

For me education involves:

Regurgitation
Integration
Innovation

And nearly every professor will signal what sort of learning (s)he wants from a student. For me the shining GOE answers are the ones that show all three, but I can't know if someone is proficient who doesn't know the story.

But hey, I am neither Pope nor PB.

Michael, I have read some General Ordination Exam questions and have found them less than inspiring. Some of the questions are so basic that one doesn't need to have gone to seminary to answer them. The seminar model in which students get to sit down and discuss a discipline with a professor involved in real research seems more likely to foster critical thinking. I don't think a seminary should be just a priest factory. Coursework should be academically rigorous and require more than rote memorization.

I can do without the regurgitation and would rather look at a creative answer to a problem. Hopefully, that answer by citing from the tradition would show some familiarity with the so-called basics.

Gary Paul Gilbert

I withdraw my last comment.

Michael, I have just read some exam questions from the General Ordination Exam and find that they sound more academically rigorous than what I remember from the 1990s. The more recent exams require thought and not mere paraphrase.

Gary Paul Gilbert

http://www.episcopalgbec.org/previous-exams/index.htm

@Gary Exam writing is hard work. The GBEC folks spend tons of hours crafting as clear a question as they can. As with all human endeavors some are great, some so-so and some are awful. But it is not for lack of great effort.

Regurgitation is not that lovely an image, I know, and yet to command a discipline one must command its panorama with some detail. There s enough bonkers stuff loose in the world that if clergy are not well enough versed they cannot reply to it with any "street cred".

When I was trained to read GOEs, the OT Chaplain inited us to consider whether or not the writers displayed the "habitus" of reading Scripture. Does their writing show that they inhabit the text, or just gather an answer from references. No one "failed" for not showing a habitus, but as a reader you could tell it in any answer in any of the areas.

Mastery of a subject takes 10,000 hours of work at it. So we cannot expect anyone to achieve mastery in Seminary. At the same time we should not shrink from having a solid foundation in a subject that is reasonably common among us all. The three pieces work together to effect mastery.

Two days down, day off coming up. Relax and enjoy. Prayers continue for all of you taking the GOE's - especially Our Seminarian - you know who you are, if you're reading!

And if I had a say in it, I'd do away with the GOE's.

I have been a GOE reader for a number of years now, and I think it's important for the test-takers to know that when we read your essays, we do our best to find what is best in them. We read carefully and conscientiously, and we are not out to catch you up.
I would ask The Lead, and others, to be very careful with the use of the word 'hazing'. I know it's in quotation marks in the story, but hazing is a very serious thing. Many states have laws against hazing. In no way is the GOE hazing. It may be a 'hoop', but it is only one of many hoops on the road to ordained ministry.
- Anne LeVeque