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

[Dale White]

"Just by offering paths for other religions to study alongside Christians is not to make a soteriological claim."

Yes, it does. By lending the name and reputation of the school to the courses, they give them legitimacy. You're argument is like saying that if CST started offering nude photography courses or stripper lessons, it would be okay, since it is separate from the Christian courses. Your argument is not consistent.

[UMJeremy]

Incorrect. I did not say that it was OK because there were Christian and non-Christian classes. I said that offering such classes did not make a soteriological claim. Again, point me to the exact words where they claim "all paths lead to God" and thus we are doing this program shift, and I will concede my entire argument.

Instead they are making an academic and theological claim that our Christians would be stronger by learning alongside other faiths. And other faiths would have stronger relations with Christians as a result. Our faith is not so weak that it cannot stand up to critique from colleagues from other faiths, is it?

Seminary is a school of learning, not winning.

[Mike Cooper]

Claremont claims to teach both the Muslim and the Christian faith. If the school teaches the Muslim faith, it teaches that Jesus was a prophet, but only a man, not God. Jeremy, that is heresy. It also teaches the Muslim viewpoint that its religion is a way to heaven. That is also heresy. Why on earth should the United Methodist Church continue to send $800,000 to an unabashedly heretical school?

[Kat B.]

After spending years in the UMC, today, at the age of 47, I have decided to remove my membership. My conscience won't let me continue on as a member. May God have mercy on us.

[Dale White]

"I did not say that it was OK because there were Christian and non-Christian classes. I said that offering such classes did not make a soteriological claim."

It is precisely this type of word game which is diluting the message of the denomination and making us appear confused as to our own beliefs. Offering the classes makes an implicit soteriological claim. To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest, and nothing but word games.

[Lewis]

Shane,
You'll have to find another idiom besides "Cross Training" that smacks of Christocentrism. ;)

Jeremy,
I agree that Claremont would not say all paths lead to God. However, I think they would probably also say that there are other paths in other faiths and cultures that constitute a faithful response to God's prevenient grace and that Christian attempts to bring those on those grace filled paths to faith in Christ would constitute proseletyzing and are inappropriate in a pluralistic world. Christian witness (as opposed to dialogue) is seen by some as imperialistic, ethnocentric and at root, spiritually violent.

There is large room for interfaith dialogue but what concerns me is a decoupling of conscious faith in Christ from Salvation. Karl Rahner posited "anonymous Christians" who are in other faiths and cultures and are responding to the grace and light that has been given them. They know Jesus without knowing his name. This is different from what some assert, which is that there is no room for witness, only dialogue. According to these, to seek the salvation of those of other faiths through witness and the preaching of the cross is a positive wrong.

My belief is that the most fundamental human right is the right to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ expressed meaningfully in one's own culture. This, like all human rights is an endowment by the Creator. The Church should not surrender the mandate to make Disciples of all ethnos in the name of dialogue. We should do the one and not leave the other undone.

[Donnie]

The more I read, the more I think seminaries and theologians in general do a lot more harm than good. At least the current crop.

[UMJeremy]

I continue to disagree that offering an academic class makes a theological claim. Asbury Theological Seminary offers a class on Calvinism, whom Wesley *vigorously* opposed and as a result, the UMC is one of the few traditions which has resisted Calvinistic thought. Does offering the class mean the seminary is devaluing Wesley? Of course not. While you may have no problem with a different *Christian* school of thought being taught, the argument of "offering a class = forced theological assent" is erroneous.

@ Lewis, that is a well-reasoned response, thank you for the fresh air. I could agree with this fundamental human right, and I would want it offered to all. Unfortunately, due to inter-religious violence, too often instead of disagreeing followers of the other religion are simply killed. Perhaps then there is value in inter-religious education to send more peacemakers to those areas that can talk both sides into paths that lead to life?

[UMJeremy]

I notice I have written several comments about inter-religious violence, which none of you have commented on. A current student at CST who has firsthand experience with inter-religious violence has a comprehensive blog post here that might show some real-world value to this project:
- http://tupamahu.blogspot.com/2010/06/some-personal-thoughts-on-claremont.html

We can argue about this from our armchairs far away from religious violence (which is closer than you think). The need for inter-religiously minded leaders will actually save lives long enough to perhaps offer them a path to eternal life. Even if you think the other religions are trash and chaff, training people to stop the violence so that more people may live long enough to hear of Jesus' call on their lives is of value indeed.

[Josh]

I can appreciate Jeremy's comments about the need for inter-faith dialogue. I'm a current student at Duke which houses an Islamic house of studies. I have no problem with this and I recommend Christians to take classes to learn about others faiths. And not just for apologetic purposes but for learning. I think that we can learn a lot from people of others faiths. I have encountered several people of other faiths and highly enjoy talking with them. Interfaith dialogue is important and necessary, especially in a pluralistic world.

That said, I think it's difficult to not make soteriological claims when training ministers of other faiths. A seminary is a training ground for leaders to be prepared to lead congregations in reconciling the world to God. The UM's mission statement is to "make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world." IMO, training leaders of other faiths doesn't assist us with this mission. You can't train a Christian minister for parish ministry without assuming that such work is needed. In the same way, you must also hold such presuppositions when training Muslim clerics and Jewish Rabbis. Christian seminaries aren't the place for such pluralities.

[KDH]

I think Jeremy provides a very important point on the comment of inter-religious violence. In a post-Andalusian world, let alone a post-9/11 world, we can no longer afford to isolate ourselves into enclaves that essentialize our religious identities to the extent of willful ignorance of the other. There is no better time for this to occur than in the institutions that train our future religious leaders and ministers.

[Lewis]

I have served a bit as a missionary and religious violence is real. So is persecution. My dream is that each faith enter the fray with ideas and try to outdo loving each other to prove the validity of their faith. Hatred of any human being is a Satanic force on earth and never comes from Jesus.

However, I do not think that true community comes through papering over the massive differences between us. I don't spend a lot of time in angst over the fact that there are different denominations. I cooperate where I can and do my own denomination's thing where I can't in good conscience go along. I presume there are things I could do with my Islamic or Jewish neighbors. I do believe that Jesus is Lord and rose from the dead. I cannot do anything through institutional linkage that diminishes that faith or even hides it from view.

That is the ground of my concern about Claremont's plan. There is a difference between a seminary and a school of religion. Maybe they and we would be better off severing our ties allowing them to move along the route they are choosing ( my understanding of a school of religion is that it is more of an academic pursuit than a pastoral one). They could continue to be an approved seminary as some independent evangelical seminaries are. If they cannot meet us in the requirements that Fuller and Asbury must meet then they would become like some evangelical seminaries that are unable to provide degrees for ordination in the UM Church.

I do not think that willful ignorance and withdrawal from dialogue is a suggestion that anyone has put forward on this message board.

Our Annual Conference used the phrase "connection" a lot this last week. I had a sinking spell when I heard it because it seems to have lost the spirituality that was intended by Wesley. Perhaps we should substitute the words bound by a Holy Covenant when we describe what links us together as United Methodists. We are, after all the body of Christ and joined at the heart if our hearts are joined to Christ (to paraphrase Otterbein)..

Every community, even the church has boundaries. I don't like that but it is a necessary thing. Jesus crossed many of them and then set his own. We need to honor the boundaries of Jesus and the New Testament with as much integrity as we can muster. If I err I hope I err on the side of grace and compassion but I do not think we can avoid the pain of struggling with and setting boundaries...