Claremont's Religious Food Court

The wire services are buzzing this week with news about United Methodist related (for now) Claremont School of Theology's launch of a new cross-training program for Jewish, Christian and Muslim leaders. Earlier this year, the United Methodist University Senate decided to withhold denominational funding from the institution. According to the AP, that amounts to about $800,000 a year. That same story, however, mentions an initial $10 million donation to Claremont, part of which has already been used to hire Muslim and Jewish faculty members. Supporters of the cross-training concept are hoping to raise at least $40 million. My guess is the UMC won't be able to twist Claremont's arm with the paltry sum of 800 grand, so look for either the school or the denomination to tell the other to take a hike sooner or later. Or, if no one raises a fuss, Claremont and the UMC might keep a marriage of convenience going. But conservatives in the denomination aren't going to be happy about a Christian school training leaders from other religions. Exactly who are the groups and individuals with a stake in this pluralism experiment? We know there has already been at least one large donation. And how can a Christian seminary train people of other religions without propagating "another gospel"?

Comments

[Neil]

"Christian pluralism" is an oxymoron. Any religious leader pushing for this should be considered a false teacher and expelled from membership. The New Testament teaches over 100 times that Jesus is the only way to salvation, not to mention the countless admonitions in the OT about only worshiping one God. If someone can't get this right it is a sure sign they are non-believers.

[UMJeremy]

I hurt for Claremont. It's hard to be on the cutting edge of a faith tradition. It cuts and hurts and blogs like this one rejoice in caustic content. But in their view, this time of pain is necessary to continue to train the next generation of inter-religiously educated leaders to help stop the inter-religious violence in the world. In what way is that a bad goal for a United Methodist institution?

The cutting edge is a hard place to be, so I'll be praying for their courage and discernment.

[Shane Raynor]

Jeremy, are you kidding?. This blog "rejoices in caustic content"? I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion, but I can assure you I don't.

Surely you aren't suggesting that I shouldn't be asking questions are you?

Does the "open mind" thing only work one way?

Jeremy, at your best you're a thinker who asks questions, makes waves and gets other people thinking. At your worst you're a predictable ideologue who disagrees before you've even heard the other side of an issue.

[UMJeremy]

Shane, you attack one non-substantive line of my comment and ignore the content. I claimed that choosing to skirt the line of doctrinal boundaries in order to provide a better training for clergy and religious scholars is a hard choice.

Rather than respond to its substance, you rage against me calling your comments caustic. You then equate "asking questions" and "open minds" with what I'm criticizing. Neither is true and neither is substantiated by the above or my comments site-wide (I'll wait while you check).

What is caustic is calling a theological school (which you haven't attended) a "food court" and a "cafeteria" rather than a place of education for our religious leaders. It does not substantively add to the conversation and denigrates the doubtlessly hard choice this must be for Claremont to try to train its religious leaders in more holistic ways.

So to prod you towards providing substantive content, what specifically about a theological school wanting to offer inter-religious education to solve inter-religious problems is a bad thing?

[Shane Raynor]

Jeremy, I have no problem with a theological school educating Christian leaders about other religions. My concern is that Claremont's concept ignores the traditional view that Jesus Christ is the only way to God. Christianity becomes one puppy in a litter of religions (probably the runt.) If traditional Christianity holds the view that Christ is the only way to God (Jesus said that himself), then it logically follows that other belief systems are "competing" with that truth. The only way I see the three major world religions sharing an educational institution is to water down each one to the point where they lose their individual identities. Surely religions can tolerate one another without sharing a curriculum. When the heart of the Christian Gospel takes a back seat to inter-religious relations, we've got a major problem.

[Donnie]

Thank you, Shane, for putting into words what I was feeling.

Far too often, (post)modern Christianity becomes more about making nice with other religions and less about spreading the gospel. And it pains me that often the UMC is guilty of this. We're not as bad as the PCUSA has become, but I fear we might be heading in that direction. We should always preach the gospel in the spirit of love. But also never waiver in spreading the truth.

[UMJeremy]

A Jewish woman taught one of my New Testament classes. My preaching is better as I'm more able to explain the cultural context of the NT. My articulations of Jesus are more respectful to people of Jewish faith in multi-faith contexts. I'm no more a Jew today than I was before I took her class.

A Muslim man taught me Islamic philosophy in college. We studied the various understandings of Sikh/Sunni histories and philosophies...more so than the senators overseeing the Middle East, I'm sure. I'm no more a Muslim today than I was before I took his class.

I think this takes it to the next level by allowing the various religions to agree together what classes and understandings are valid in today's world. Will the Jews be able to limit the number of Christian classes? I doubt it. But will they give a more accurate understanding of church history, of the wars between jews, christians, muslims? And with multiple faiths learning in one seminar class, we would learn as much from our classmates (and explaining our own beliefs) as our professors.

As I wrote on John Meunier's blog, my prayer is that the students they get are open to diversity while strong in their own faith tradition as well. It doubtless is not for the faint of heart or the new in the faith.

It's not a cafeteria. It's a potluck where we enjoy each other's food, but leave with the dish we brought in.

[Donnie]

But Jeremy, if we are not winning these people for Christ, how are we helping them?

[UMJeremy]

I have a tendency to trust in the slow work of God to change hearts and minds. In reference to the above, if we can't participate in honest theological conversation between different faiths, then how do we tell our faith's story with integrity?

Winning people for Christ is a long game with 9 innings, not one that is won with the first pitch.

[John Wilks]

Christianity has never claimed to be one dish at the divine pot luck.

Our Lord says He is the bread and the wine, the living water, the branches for the vines that bear fruit, and the Passover Lamb.

He is the whole meal deal- accept no substitutions.

[Blake Huggins]

From one of Claremont's faculty:

"The University Project is not about watering down religious traditions or reducing them to an amalgam of platitudes and positive thinking. We have no intention of being a "FOOD COURT of religion." Rather, we are interested in creating an environment that challenges each of us to become educated in our own traditions, as well as those of others, to promote mutual respect, and to work together on common issues and concerns."

http://huff.to/9XPLcQ

;-)

[UMJeremy]

Ha! Nice find, Blake!

[Shane Raynor]

Blake,
Thanks for the link to the article. It's interesting that Dr. Holbrook specifically referenced the food court comparison. As far as I know, I was the first person to call the Claremont plan a "religious food court" back in February:

http://tinyurl.com/2u8pkwf

That wasn't meant as a cheap shot- it was the best analogy I could think of at the time. And nearly 4 months later, it still seems appropriate.

I'm sure Dr. Holbrook means well, and in her mind, Christianity won't be watered down. But the way the project is being framed, Christianity will be placed on the same level as Islam and Judaism-- by a Christian theological school. Most of us would expect that at a secular school-- but not a Christian one. If we relegate Christianity to one spoke on a religion wheel, or (dare I say) one choice in the food court, we risk clipping the wings of our faith and draining its power.

[Fisher]

"If we relegate Christianity to one spoke on a religion wheel, or (dare I say) one choice in the food court, we risk clipping the wings of our faith and draining its power."

Why? In our economy, competition weeds out weak companies and makes better ones stronger. Should not the same be true for the "marketplace" of religion?

Indeed, isn't this what we see with the different Protestant denominations?

Any Christian college which has the strength of character and conviction to allow competing religions in the door might be doing something right.

[Nathan]

Don't know if I'm the only CST grad to post so far, but you might do well to research the aims and goals and methodology of the project before you go slandering it and worrying that it is going to turn a bunch of committed Christians into Muslims or Jews. Did you have the opportunity to take courses with Muslims or Jews while you were in seminary? If the answer is no, then you really don't know the value (that Jeremy spoke of earlier) in doing so. Certainly not enough to question an institution that has been encouraging those kinds of opportunities for years (the project is pre-dated by an "inter-sem" retreat type thing that gave us seminarians the chance to do this kind of thing over a short term, and while I was at seminary, I benefited from attending class with Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and others.) I think it is a very United Methodist way to attend seminary, but I know that the heritage of the UMC is very broad and diverse, and others who are just as committed to the UMC might find this kind of education threatening.
By the way, you're not the first person to refer to the potential dangers of inter-religious education as "food courtism." You share that prognosis with none other than Houston Smith (who you might label as a patron of that food court) who referred to the implicit dangers of "a-la carte religion" (though the dangers he has in mind, such as cheapening the implicit value of each religious perspective by melding them all together, might be different than what you might consider the dangers to be.)
And lastly, you speak of "clipping the wings of faith" by "offering it as one choice in the food court." I don't think we possess the power of clipping the wings of faith. The Spirit is one Bird whose wings cannot and will not be clipped, no matter what. But even if it were possible, would it be more advantageous to the Spirit's movement to pretend that our faith exists in a vacuum, and propagate a lie that our way of expressing faith in God came about without the influence of any other religion? Would you be as opposed to this project if it only involved Jews and Christians?

[Josh]

Can we benefit from conversations with Jews and Muslims? Of course! I think that Christians should be willing to listen to the faith of others before sharing there own. However, the church is at a very critical stage in the US and as we know, it lives and dies on leadership. Therefore, we must have strait forward, gospel oriented seminaries. These are the most formative years of a minister's life and they need to guide people and grow them in the gospel. There is already enough doubt displayed in seminary as is! People, maybe rightly so, are questioning whether to go to seminary or not. They ask this because they are seeing passionate for Christ people enter seminary and come out more, for lack of a better word, academic than passionate. IMO, not question will folks be turned off by this type of program. I really doubt that John Wesley had this in mind when thinking about training ministers.

[Dale White]

I agree with all the posters who have said that we should have dialog with Muslims and Jews. We should be able to understand their faith, and their objections to our's. But for a school to say, "The only way to God is through Christ, but we'll also teach other faiths clergy" is hypocrisy. We either believe that Christ is the only path to salvation, or we don't.

[Donnie]

Dale,

Sad to say, but there are some in the UMC (clergy, laypersons, officials, theologians/professors) who believe the "many paths to Heaven" heresy.

I never understood why the UMC would allow this kind of heresy to continue. Our statement of belief explicitly states that the UMC believes Jesus is the only path to Heaven. Why is it so hard to require our Pastors and the theologians at our seminaries to teach and believe this?

[Mike Cooper]

And also, why should the United Methodist Church send $800,000 a year to a school that teaches the "all paths lead to heaven" heresy?

[UMJeremy]

I'd like to see in writing where Claremont has claimed that "all paths lead to heaven" as a part of this program shift.

In writing.

[Shane Raynor]

Nathan,

Thanks for your perspective. If you read carefully what I originally wrote, you'll see that I didn't claim to be the first person to comment on "à la carte" religion. I simply noted that I was the first to refer to Claremont's project as a "religious food court."

I first used the term in February and in April there was a daily newspaper in CA, the San Bernardino Sun, that quoted me using the food court analogy.

I only brought it up because, as Blake pointed out, a Claremont professor attempted to reassure everyone this week that Claremont has "no intention of becoming a 'food court' of religions".

[Dale White]

Jeremy, you want to see it "in writing"?? The fact that they are offering programs leading to becoming Jewish or Muslim clergy lends validation to their religions claims of leading to salvation. Some things don't have to hit you in the head to be real!

[Mike Cooper]

Jeremy, I would also like to respond to what you said. Consider this:

1. Jerry Campbell, President of Claremont said, when commenting on the program, "the hard boundaries of religious identities begin to diminish."

2. Jesus Christ, in John 14:6, said "I am the way, and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Those statements are diametrically opposed. Which one is taught at Claremont?

Do you have any evidence, whether written or otherwise, that Claremont teaches what Jesus taught in John 14:6? And I would renew my earlier statement. Why should the United Methodist Church send $800,000 to Claremont?

[UMJeremy]

We are confusing theological claims and academic standards.

Both John 14:6 and "all paths lead to heaven" are soteriological claims, or ones that claim what salvation is. Just by offering paths for other religions to study alongside Christians is not to make a soteriological claim. Thus, offering this program does not, in my view, make the claim that "all paths lead to heaven."

@ Mike, I don't see that as related, see the above comment. Religious identity is not the same as statements of soteriology. I can believe that Jews and Muslims are heathens to be exterminated (a superiority religious identity) and believe that Christ is the only way to heaven (soteriology). One is a valid expression, the other is not.

As far as evidence, I'm not the one making the claim of heresy. You have to have proof to claim heresy, which you have henceforth been unable to bring to the table.

[bthomas]

The UMUS made a wise decision. UM do not give money to CST or any other UM related school to underwrite the education of those seeking to study other faiths. UM give money to these schools to prepare men and women to follow the call of God in ministry. CST is free to offer theological menu featuring "smorgasbord spirituality." CST is not free to do so and at the same time expect that UM will continue to help fund their program. The UMUS made a wise decision. If CST cannot faithfully teach Christian theology, then the UMUS needs to make their decision permanent and redirect the funds to those institutions that can with integrity teach Christian theology informed and grounded on the faith, heritage and tradition of the Church.