What's your mission?
Monday, April 14, 2008
A friend alerted me to changes that have been made recently to the mission statement of Claremont School of Theology in Claremont, CA. Claremont is a seminary of the United Methodist Church, which means that it is one of the 13 official UM seminaries responsible for training UM clergy.So imagine my surprise when I read the mission statement and saw that there is no reference to God, Jesus Christ, or the United Methodist Church itself:
"An ecumenical and interfaith institution, Claremont School of Theology seeks to instill students with the ethical integrity, religious intelligence, and intercultural understanding necessary to become effective in thought and action as spiritual leaders in the increasingly diverse, multi-faith world of the 21st century."
The context of the new mission statement is given in a bit more detail in this news release by the seminary and this blog post by seminary president Dr. Jerry Campbell.
Now maybe I'm overreacting. But it seems to me that a United Methodist seminary ought to at least be able to identify itself as rooted in the monotheistic tradition (let alone the Christian faith itself). I asked a couple of friends about this, both of whom have lived on the West Coast. They said that the cultural context of Southern California, as perhaps the most religiously diverse area in the country, means that the context for thinking about the mission of a seminary is very different than in other places. They said something else that was striking to me as well: That oftentimes the church's mission out there is largely understood as learning how to speak peacefully to other religions.
My question: How can you talk to other religions if you don't know who you are?
Labels: Church-Related Higher Education, Claremont School of Theology, Theological Education
posted by Andrew C. Thompson at 9:59 PM
10 Comments:
you are on to something here... now look around, listen carefully and then say something with your voice.
Despite the theological statement of 1988 in the Discipline, and despite a a clear (?) mission statement, the UMC continues to struggle with its identity.
Claremont's new mission seems to be the epitome of "Open hearts. Open minds. Open doors." How can we know who we are as Methodists unless we talk (and are educated) with people of other faiths?
Open hearts. Open minds. Open doors. Open Heads.
I've had some experience w/ Southern California churches, specifically, Free Methodist churches. They stand out in SoCal as the orthodox option among Methodists.
Having worked in a diverse hospital setting for the last few months, I can say that understanding and peaceful engagement does NOT mean giving up your convictions. I think Richard Mouw of Fuller (ahem, in SoCal...) recently said something about "convicted civility," quoting Martin Marty.
;)
http://blog.hackingchristianity.net/2008/04/mission-holiness-rankings-of-umc.html
Blah, that didn't work...but the article is accessible from the main site.
God help me! I'm a pastor who was trained at Claremont seminary and now they've gone and changed their mission statement! I'm lost in a terrible void!
Andrew, as a Gen-Xer--how much stock do you put in a "mission statement" anyway?
FWIW, I went to class with Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Korean Methodists, Mexican Methodists, WASP Methodists, 7th day adventists, and so on. Methinks this is a different context than the other Methodist seminaries (though I could be wrong), and thus might possibly deserve a different "official explanation" of how that institution sees itself. Wesleyan theology is still very adequately and passionately taught, worship classes are basically taught out of the Book of Worship, and I don't feel any less prepared for Methodist ministry than any of my counterparts here in the heartland. (Even the Asbury ones--and yes, even the Duke ones)
If I seem defensive, excuse me. It just seems that bashing Claremont is an all too common way to score "Methodist points" with the "I'm more Methodist than you" police who evidently wrote the mission statement at Asbury. "Many gifts, one spirit" may just apply to institutions of higher education too.
Some would say that the ethnic and religious ldiversity of Southern California is the future of America, and that Claremont is on the leading edge of the 21st century.
As a Claremont grad, I'm glad I was trained amidst religious diversity so I can work for Christ more effectively in a religiously diverse world. My Methodist ministry is better because of it.
Nathan, you raise a good point about the relative value of mission statements. I don't put much stock in them insofar as they are used to express the complex vision of complex institutions. They strike me as an unfortunate borrowing from corporate culture (where mission statements are big) with a little nod to the media sound byte environment that we live in at present.
That said, I think there is a big difference between relative value (in a positive sense) and the way in which such statements are received and used by others both inside and outside the institution in question. The Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors campaign from UMCOM is a good example of what I mean. This marketing slogan is now appealed to as definitive of what the UMC represents, despite the fact that it was fashioned as a media project designed to raise awareness of, and increase positive feelings about, the UMC. It is not the product of any kind of critical theological reflection. But regardless, its simple form and ease of use cause it to be used as the gospel itself by many in the church. For heaven's sakes, note the anonymous comment above that justifies Claremont's statement with an appeal to Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors. That's using one non-Christian statement utterly divorced from the catholic tradition and using it to justify another non-Christian statement utterly divorced from the catholic tradition.
I understand your sense of defensiveness about your M.Div alma mater, but remember that I'm not talking about Claremont turning into another Asbury. I'm talking about the willingness to express - in a statement that the seminary, at least, considers definitive of its mission - that the school stands rooted in the Christian tradition and has a living relationship with the United Methodist Church. Those are broad, inclusive considerations rather than narrow and exclusive ones.
As to the anonymous comment immediately above this one, I can only say that there is a huge divide between visions of what living in a religiously diverse culture looks like. For some, that means a version of pluralism that does not allow for confessional identity (hence, the Claremont statement). For others, it means being formed in your identity so you can better know how to talk with those from other traditions when you come into contact with them. This divide is greater than just about anything else the church faces; I would say it is bigger than the 'hot button' social issues, but in truth, those issues are usually subsets of the divide I am talking about.
The biblical context for this divide can be seen in the books of the Kings. Israel had the hardest time not falling into religious syncretism, and I am sure that the Israelites of that time would have given all kinds of reasonable justifications for why their idolatry was understandable given the diverse nature of the peoples and religions around them.
Post a Comment
<< Home