Kerux: a portfolio of Calvin Theological Seminary - Volume 41.12 - 29 January 2007

The oral comp exams: reflections of a senior

by Chad Vandervalk, Contributing Editor

On Wednesday, January 3, I took the oral comprehensive exam that every CTS student is required to pass before graduation.

Now, before I begin, I have to admit that my experience was by no means normative. There were many who have expressed that they did not experience the process in the same way that I did, nor did we all have the same outcome.

I sustained the exam, though I hope the powers that be do not reconsider this in the light of what is to come. Keep in mind that we were told throughout the entire preparatory time that the exam was just a ‘conversation’ – a time to figure out if we had what it takes to answer questions in the pastorate.

I do not know where these guys served, but I bet they did not have a group of four highly educated professors sit down with them someday and riddle them with questions while just having a ‘conversation.’

All joking aside, I did have a good time of it. I have to admit that I was not able to do as much to prepare for the exam as I wish I could have. Sure, I went over Berkhof’s Summary of Christian Doctrine and reviewed my notes from the history classes. The Summary was helpful because it provides some of the necessary prooftexts that inevitably come up in a ‘conversation’ such as this, even though they are written in King James’s English. The notes were good as well, especially Rylaarsdam’s purple sheets outlining the timeframe of some of the major councils and controversies.

As I said, not everyone had the same experience as I did. Not everyone had an enjoyable experience. One person spent almost 15 minutes waiting for the decision from his panel on whether he sustained or not. He was sweating bullets by the time they called him back in. Even having the same panel did not guarantee the same experience. I spent over an hour talking to someone who had the same panel as I did, trying to process the event. It is interesting that I learned more about the information given to us in seminary in that time than I had in all the classes. Well, maybe not quite that much, but I did learn a lot.

I was the second in my group to go into the room. The person before me had sustained his exam, and I was beginning to get quite nervous. Sitting down at the end of the table with those professors looking at you expecting big things from you makes one a bit weak in the knees.

My panel consisted of Howard Vanderwell, adjunct professor of worship; Scott Hoezee, director of the Center for Excellence in Preaching; Arie Leder, Martin J. Wyngaarden professor in Old Testament studies; and David Rylaarsdam, associate professor of historical theology.

The examination began with Vanderwell, who had twenty minutes to open up the conversation. Things began rather well and the first question I received was, “What is your theology of worship, and what is your Biblical basis for this theology?” This allowed me some time to discuss what I thought worship was, though it was hard for me to come up with Biblical basis for it. For the life of me I could not remember the passage that has enthralled Associate Professor of Worship John Witvliet. I kept thinking, “I know there is a passage where someone leads the whole Israelite community in worship, I just cannot remember where.” Some of you may know where, and I remembered as soon as I left the room. “Of course, Nehemiah 7-11! How could I forget that?”

The questioning proceeded around that table in the order that I introduced the questioners above. Some of the questions were, “What is preaching and how do you incorporate human suffering into your messages?” “What is wisdom literature?” “What is the nature of prophecy?” “Who is the greatest prophet in the Old Testament?” For those of you who do not know this one, it is Moses, at least according to Deuteronomy 34:10-12.

I was also asked, “What is the nature of forgiveness?” “Are you born again?” “What is the difference between Evangelical and Reformed?” and even “What are the uses of the law and how does the Reformed explanation of this differ from the Lutheran?”

There were many other questions, most of which I do not remember. I did find that the examination was more of a conversation than I expected. I even found the professors leading me in certain directions. The scary thing for me was how much they dug. They wanted to make sure that I knew what I was talking about, and was not just using language that I had heard. They kept pushing on an issue until I could go no further. There were a quite a few times when I had to say, “I do not know for sure.” Naturally, I did not leave it at this and gave an explanation to the best of my ability.

I found the whole experience to be rather enjoyable, and I thank the seminary for the opportunity. The previous master’s degree that I completed did not provide this kind of synthesis opportunity. The information that I have received has remained rather disconnected, and the oral comprehensive provided the stimulus I needed to try to put all the information that I have gained here into some sort of a comprehensive system.

The most important thing I think I gained from this is preparation for the Classical exam I will have to face in the coming years. It cannot be worse that this, can it?