THE CALL TO ACTION AND SEMINARY REFORM

The question has often been asked, at least by those who seek renewal in the church, whether the church believes that its educational institutions, and particularly its theological schools, should reflect the values, the beliefs, and the mission of The United Methodist Church.  Or to put the matter another way, do the leaders of the church understand, and do they intend to do anything about, the conflict between bowing before academic altars on one hand and advancing the cause of Jesus Christ in The United Methodist Church on the other?

 Perhaps the question is moot.  The last known heresy trial in the church took place in 1905.  Up until then (during the period of tremendous church growth) the bishops of the church, given the responsibility by the Discipline to “guard the faith,” monitored seminary teaching even to the extent of being involved in the selection of professors.  The General Conference of the M.E. Church of 1908, influenced by the rising tide of theological modernism, removed from the Discipline the phrase, …theological schools, “whose professors are nominated or confirmed by the Bishops….”   Later it would remove the reference that the theological schools existed “for the benefit of the whole church.”   Since the theological schools did not exist for the benefit of the whole church, for what or for whom did they exist?

The answer is: themselves.  By 1928 every single seminary of theM.E.Churchidentified its orientation as “modernism” (the only denomination at that time where every single school identified itself that way).  Since they were not being heavily subsidized at that point it is understandable that they wanted to put distance between themselves and “the whole church.”  They could still speak of training leaders for the church, but now they would define what “leaders” of the church looked like, with or without church input. 

Like the secular world around them the schools sought standing from the academic world, not from the Christian world.  In this academic environment “freedom of inquiry” meant also freedom from church control, or, in some cases, church influence.  At any rate there were to be no creedal tests (including the church’s doctrinal standards) for the hiring of professors.  They could be Methodist or not Methodist, Christian or not Christian. 

Some schools valued their church connections.  Duke, for example, has a special relationship with the twoNorth Carolinaconferences.  This is the exception rather than the rule.  Some seminaries, to a certain extent, have made an effort  to reflect the beliefs and values of the church, but that varied from time to time and place to place, and no one monitored the efforts, except (in the present day) in such matters as “diversity,” “openness of inquiry,” and various forms of political correctness.

All of the  schools have had, and presently have a relationship to the church through the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry and through the University Senate, but GBHEM traditionally, and especially through its University Senate, often appears to have the attitude that the church exists to serve the educational institutions rather than the other way around.  The University Senate is like the fox guarding the chicken coop.  The academic make-up of the Senate means that the Senate protects its own.  So it removes approval of excellent non-UM schools, especially evangelical schools who do operate from an understanding that they are preparing pastors committed to making disciples of Jesus Christ.  It is becoming increasingly obvious that this is to force students to attend UM schools which at this time need the students and the money they bring with them.

The Call to Action report, an attempt to refocus and reform the church, and to reverse decades of declining membership, is now before the church and will be discussed and debated before being considered by the 2012 General Conference.  While all the agencies of the church are being asked to consolidate, merge, downsize, and structure for effectiveness, nothing much is being expected of the seminaries.  There is one intriguing “affirmation,” however.  The Call to Action Steering Committee does include the seminaries in its “adaptive challenges” with an “Affirmation” that the seminaries have a role in the renewal of the church.  Under the rubric “affirmation” the report says the Council of Bishops and appropriate church agencies will work with the seminary leadership to “identify and develop curriculum requirements and also to clarify expectations, measure performance, and tie funding to outcomes.” 

Future Happenings articles will look at what that phrase about “expectations,” “curriculum,” “performance,” and “funding tied to outcomes” might look like.  For the moment, however, some observations are in order about the extent to which the seminaries, at least as reflected in their web pages, presently see themselves aligned with the beliefs and the core values and the mission of The United Methodist Church. 

United and Gammon seminaries are perhaps the closest in their endeavor to come along-side the church in its attempt to make disciples of Jesus Christ.  Gammon seeks “to recruit, support and educate pastors and leaders for The United Methodist Church.”  Its vision is to “educate and equip persons to be prophetic leaders in the making of disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world” (the exact words of the mission of the UM Church).

United Seminary also seeks to reflect UM values in its vision statement.  United seeks to educate leaders to make disciples of Jesus Christ, renew the church, and transform the world.  It is perhaps the only seminary which takes seriously the task of “renewing.”   One of its professors, Jason Vickers, has written a book, Minding the Good Ground A Theology for Church Renewal, which actually links renewal with theology and a new direction. 

When evangelical students have been asked if any of the seminaries affirmed their evangelical faith while they were students, two seminaries have been mentioned as being open and affirming to evangelicals, namely, United and Duke.  Some students speak positively of certain professors in other seminaries, but none of the other seminaries have received overall positive remarks. 

For good reason.  Claremont speaks of being a “multi-religious consortium” with the inclusion of Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and Buddhists.  “Multi-religious” affirmation does not appear to include the affirmation of evangelicals.  Claremont desires to instill students with ethical integrity, religious intelligence and intercultural understanding.  Being interpreted this means it does not seek to seek converts from other religions.  

Iliif affirms its United Methodist identity but within the “liberal” Christian heritage which is interpreted to mean openness to emerging truths especially those from science, experience, and other faith traditions.  Iliff is committed to modeling the values it embraces: diversity, mutual respect, accountability, honest communication, critical self-reflection, curiosity, creativity and a sense of adventure.  There is nothing there about winning disciples for Jesus Christ. 

Boston is proud that it is recognized as one of the top 20 schools in multi-faith education.  According to its purpose statement Boston wants to pursue knowledge of God, to cultivate leaders for communities of faith, to enrich the academy, and to seek peace with justice in a diverse and interconnected world.  In 2008Bostonsupplied a grand total of seven students who were ordained elder or deacon in the UM Church.  For this the school received in apportionment funds from the church $863,235, or $123,310 per UM student ordained.

Drew speaks at length about its diversity.  Forty-five percent of the faculty is non-Caucasian.  The faculty cares deeply about issues of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, class, ecology and the environment.  Drew addresses these issues intellectually in its teaching and practically in its advocacy for justice. 

Candler’s mission is to educate through scholarship, teaching and service, faithful and creative leaders for the church’s ministry in the world.  Perkins seeks to fit men and women for faithful leadership in Christian ministry.  It boasts of having 25% minorities and 50% women.  Wesley Seminary goes one better with 56% women, 43% ethnic minority and 38 denominations.  Its “diversity” includes a strong lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, and queer student group which recently circulated a flyer encouraging students to join the annual drag queen race inWashingtonD.C.  Perhaps this is “Methodist Ethos,” a phrase frequently used by the University Senate to judge as unacceptable evangelical schools which see as their mission the making of disciples of Jesus Christ. 

And so it goes.  For all of their emphasis on ethnic studies, diversity, and multi-faith involvement, the seminaries have not made any difference in the ethnic make-up of the UM Church.  Despite the percentage of theUSpopulation that is ethnic, the UM Church in its membership is still less than 8% ethnic. 

Is there hope for the seminaries?  Schools like United offer hope.  Other schools have some strong evangelical United Methodist scholars which are an encouragement to many students.  Overall, however, there is a widespread and serious problem.  Our hope is that the Call to Action affirmations are taken seriously.  That could only be a step in the right direction. 

(to access other Happenings articles or link to books by Riley Case go to rileycase.com)