I believe I recorded elsewhere on the PB my stated exceptions made to Presbytery upon my reception and ordination. I did take exception to the WCF at this point. I am sorry to say that in my case as well as subsequent cases, the standard operating procedure was effected (and this is a "conservative" presbytery: the presbytery voted to dismiss my exceptions (I proposed two) as "not constituting exceptions the the Standards" by Presbytery's reckoning. In other words, they/we didn't vote to admit an exception but not to consider these self-evaluations as exceptions at all. No discussion. This, to me, means that there is entrenched even in essentially solid church bodies (like my own), a mindset that refuses to encourage consistent thinking and aggreed upon definitions. One man, a long time minister and by all appearance a solid fellow, gave this exception: God should not be defined as "a spirit," for that is not simply descriptive of his essence, but puts him into a "class" with other "spirits" or "spiritual beings". I thought that revealed a very careful mind, one who by this statement was offering the church an opportunity to clarify itself better. If this is really a deficiency, shouldn't we discuss it? But rather than considering the exception and granting it, as expressive of genuine orthodoxy (or as not challenging orthodoxy's vitals), we dismissed it as "unexceptional". Mine was the only vote against this "that's not an exception, move on" vote. Not because I thought the exception was improper or dangerous, but because I thought it was good, and constituted an opportunity to acknowledge a deviation and sharpen ourselves. Doesn't that make sense?