The Church and Higher Education

It's taking me a bit longer than I expected to try and catch up here in Durham after my recent mission trip to Chincha, Peru. I think that's a result of the time of year, both with respect to church life and university life.

I'm going to write more about our time in Peru in the coming days, but until then, I wanted to let you know about a new feature piece in the United Methodist Reporter, in which my friend and colleague Eric Van Meter and I sound off on the issue of higher education and the United Methodist Church.

The feature - which is titled, "Dialogue on higher education and faith," - gave Eric and me a chance to share ideas and examine the relationship of church and academy. It's a topic I've thought a lot about over my adult life, since I've spent more than 12 of the past 15 years either attending or working for various colleges and universities. Interestingly enough, every one of those schools was founded by Methodists: Hendrix College, Vanderbilt University, Lambuth University, and Duke University. Of the four, all but Vandy continue to maintain some affiliation with the UMC.

But the church's understanding of its educational mission has changed significantly from the late 19th- to early 20th-century founding of most of its institutions of higher learning. Administrators at Methodist schools will be quick to tell you that they are not "church schools." The very term makes admissions officers shudder with sectarian horror. Instead, they are at best "church-related," a term that is vague enough that it can mean a great deal or nothing at all.

Sometimes the Enlightenment desire to appear blessedly free of religion - which is very strong in campus culture - leads the uninformed to overreach in their speech. I have personally walked behind tour groups led by undergraduate students on Duke's campus on a couple of occasions, when the guide pointed up to the statues of John Wesley and Francis Asbury on the facade of Duke Chapel. The university was founded by Methodists, the guide explained each time, but we here at Duke haven't been affiliated with any church for a long, long time. That isn't true, of course. But to prospective students and parents who might be offended by the idea that the Christian faith should have a robust place in the academy, a little white lie is one way to apologize for the beautiful-yet-unmistakeably-Christian presence of a big church in the middle of campus.

Generally speaking, I think there are about three ways to think about Methodism's historic mission in higher ed. One is as an avenue for the education of the poor and the children of preachers. Varieties of that rationale were behind Methodist establishments of everything from John Wesley's school at Kingswood to the post-Civil War foundations of most Methodist colleges in the U.S. But take a look at the price tag of United Methodist-related colleges and universities today. Many still give discounts to PK's, but "half-off" tuition still is pretty pricey when your tuition is northward of $25,000 per year. And the poor? You're much more likely to find them in junior colleges and state universities than in private church-related schools.

A second way to think about the educational mission is as a way to form pastors for ministry. Since the M.Div is now required for ordained elders, and some master's-level degree is (almost always) required for deacons, that means the mission of theological education is mostly with the 13 UM-related seminaries. In my opinion, this is a continuing area where the church really needs to be involved in an educational mission. Unfortunately, there is just about zero consensus as to what theological education should look like. I happen to think Duke Divinity School is the best theological school in the connection, but someone educated at Claremont School of Theology or Iliff School of Theology would probably think they had landed on another planet if they spent much time around here. Is it okay for a church's seminaries to have widely divergent understandings of the church's own educational mission for its future clergy? And if not, how does the church bring about a consensus in its seminaries? Those seem to me to be open questions.

And then a third way to think about the church's mission in higher education is simply to say that it is the way the church contributes to a healthier, more robust, better educated society. That, I would argue, is the de facto reason the UMC continues to support undergraduate education at all. Though most UM-related schools have an active campus ministry affiliated with the denomination in some way, that is a far cry from the idea that the church has a vision for how higher education itself should be done. It is instead the secular paradigm of higher ed in a liberal democratic society that has won the day; it took the thought of Enlightenment-era French and German intellectuals about 250 years, but they have now successfully displaced the confessionally-oriented, communally Christian model of Methodist college life. And so the church's continuing support of its offspring can really only be justified with the affirmation that "our" schools are making a better society overall. But for my money, here's the really interesting question: What happens when the society we've bettered no longer has a use for something as odd and illiberal as the church?

These points really go beyond what Eric and I are doing in the feature piece, but I've been mulling them over since we finished it. He and I both focus a lot on the way the church can have a formative role in the lives of college students. And whether we're doing that in old ways or new, we simply must not let 18-22 year old men and women continue to fall through the cracks. If you get time to read the dialogue, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

The Hendrix debate: a recap

I'm home from Annual Conference now, trying to get caught up after a very interesting few days in Hot Springs, Arkansas. I know I've spilled a lot of ink on this blog discussing the Hendrix issue over the past few weeks, but I wanted to share a few thoughts on the results of the debate that occurred Wednesday morning on the floor of the conference. After this post, I'll get back to my usual fare of Gen-X, church-related posts.

The debate on the proposed changes to the Hendrix charter took place the last morning of the Annual Conference session, but the preparations for that debate took up a lot of my time from Sunday evening through Tuesday night. (If you have no idea what I'm talking about, you can read the posts over the past couple of weeks to acquaint yourself with the issue).

I got some good advice on Monday morning from Dr. Rebekah Miles, an elder in the Arkansas Conference and a professor of ethics at Perkins School of Theology, who told me that if I had any expectation of winning the vote, I would need to build a coalition. That task fell primarily to Danny Redding-Rhodes and myself, who both came into the conference session as advocates of a continued strong clergy presence on the Hendrix Board of Trustees. What we found (partially to our surprise) was that there were a whole lot of folks at the conference - laity and clergy alike - who felt the same way. Some of them were people like us, i.e., young clergy types who graduated from Hendrix. But many of them were people like Beka Miles, who have been involved with the Annual Conference for much longer and who just couldn't understand the clergy trustees' reasoning in advocating for a diminished clergy presence on the Board.

So what I basically did on Monday and Tuesday was to talk to anyone who was interested about what a reduced church connection on the Board might mean for long-term relations between Hendrix and the Arkansas Conference. We also talked about a compromise resolution, that would either ask the Board to raise the total number of trustees or suggest that the 5 spots being debated would be reserved for clergy but could be drawn from around the connection (rather than just from the Arkansas Conference). I mostly did not have to seek out people to talk to; instead, they kept finding me! I'll admit that there were a few folks who seemed to side with the clergy trustees' position simply because they were respected, established voices in the Annual Conference. That was a little frustrating; I am an advocate of heeding the voice of wisdom and experience, I also don't think that it should be an excuse for shutting off reason.

When Wednesday morning came, the debate that happened was the liveliest moment in a session that was otherwise dominated by reports and presentations. Those of us who opposed the measure were given 3 speeches of 3 minutes each. Our speeches were made by the Rev. Fred Haustein (pastor of St. James UMC in Little Rock), Karen Millar (a layperson from FUMC in Searcy, AR, who has been a delegate to General Conference), and myself. The clergy trustees actually had 5 opportunities to speak in favor of the proposal: there were the 3 "pro" speeches, but they were sandwiched in the middle of a two-part presentation by the Rev. Bud Reeves, who was the clergy trustees' representative in arguing for the proposal. Following the speeches, Danny Redding-Rhodes moved that the vote be held by written ballot rather than by voice. He gave an eloquent explanation of why such a method was needed, which was primarily so people could truly vote their conscience (the bishop, after all, was one of the named supporters of the trustees' presentation and was mentioned in Bud Reeves' closing remarks). No one spoke against Danny's motion, and it passed by probably 85-90%.

After the votes were tallied, the trustees' proposal passed by a count of 338 in favor to 253 against. We did all we could, but in the end we just got beat. Thus, as clergy rotate off the Board of Trustees, the five newly-freed up positions will be filled in a much different way than before.

Overall, this was a very good experience for me. I learned a little more than I knew before about the politics of the Annual Conference, and I also got to experience about how Christians of goodwill can disagree and still remain friends afterward. I think that both sides of the debate truly attempted to go about the politics of the situation in a Christian manner, and that is very important.

Some final thoughts:

-- I had a few people tell me after everything was said and done that this debate was much different than previous Hendrix debates. In the past, the debate is usually between a 'pro-Hendrix' faction and an 'anti-Hendrix' faction, and it can turn quite vicious. The debate this year was really between two 'pro-Hendrix' groups, and many folks thought that the disagreement itself served as proof that there is still a lot of passion left for the Hendrix College-Arkansas Conference relationship. So in a sense, even the defeat of our efforts revealed a small victory. I hope that the passion for Hendrix will grow and will help keep Hendrix within the church's fold over the long term.

-- The debate would have been a lot closer if the 'anti-Hendrix' people in the Annual Conference had simply stayed on the sidelines and not voted. As it was, the clergy trustees' greatest allies in the vote were the very people who would like to see Hendrix completely disassociate from the church. (And yes, that ought to tell you something about the value of the trustees' argument that the charter change will actually strengthen Hendrix's UM connection). Take for instance this e-mail sent to me from an admitted 'anti-Hendrix' Arkansas pastor: "I voted with you although many in my group voted against. Their reasoning was that a diminished number of Arkansas clergy will separate us further from Hendrix and lead to our ultimate separation - which in their opinion (and mine to be honest) is a good thing. I think we have started down that road. Good effort though. I was impressed by your arguments. Many who voted against you were voting against a connection with Hendrix." Now that e-mail is simply remarkable to me. I hope the Hendrix folks realized how much they were pleasing their erstwhile opponents.

-- I learned that it is very, very difficult to oppose the powers-that-be in any situation like an Annual Conference session. The list of people on the Hendrix Board of Trustees who supported the charter proposal included the bishop, our current episcopal candidate, the director of conference ministries, two district superintendents, and a collection of some of the most respected large-church pastors in the conference. Heck, I respect those folks an awful lot myself! But though everything was conducted civilly and with an attempt at fairness, there were some subtle ways that our position was at a disadvantage simply because of who they are compared to who we are. That's just tough to overcome, when you are already working against the inertia that exists to vote with what the college wants to happen. I don't know the answer to this, except that it proves Beka Miles' advice about coalition building, and even when you do that it will often not be enough.

-- Politics, even church politics, is about a whole lot more than the arguments at hand. The arguments undergirding the charter proposal that the Board of Trustees was pushing were not particularly good arguments. In fact, they were largely weak. We were able to answer each one of them, such that they were either exposed as flimsy in and of themselves, or else they were easily answered with reference to ways Hendrix's goals could be met without reducing the number of Arkansas clergy trustees. And then we proceeded to get beat by 85 votes. All the stuff I mentioned above had a bearing on that final vote, plus plenty else. Making good arguments is key, but it ain't enough by itself.

-- The relationship between Hendrix College and the Arkansas Conference could have a very bright future. I'm no doom-n-gloom guy, regardless of the fact that my position got beat. Do I think the charter revision will hurt the college-church relationship down the road? Yep. I would be pretty foolish for having taken the stand I did if I didn't think that. But the clergy trustees I spoke to both before and after the debate are honestly convinced that the connection could grow in new and exciting ways, regardless of how many clergy trustees there are. Who knows? Maybe they're right. And in the meantime, the work that campus ministers like the Revs. Wayne Clark and J.J. Whitney are doing at Hendrix will continue, and that's a good thing.

So for those of you who have been wondering when this seemingly interminable debate would terminate, that time has come. I admit I've been dealing with some real feelings of let-down and depression over the past two days, but that will pass. It's time to move on.

[Note for conspiracy theorists: If you want to read something that will drive your conspiracy radar nuts, check out the online interview with Alex Khalaf, this past year's president of the "Hendrix Humanist Association," in this Secular Student Alliance newsletter from October 2007. In it, Mr. Khalaf reports that a Hendrix Board of Trustees member sent him an e-mail congratulating him on the founding of his atheistic organization and wishing him good luck in being able to "advance the cause of enlightenment" in the Hendrix community.]

A reply to clergy trustees

This year's session of the Arkansas Annual Conference begins tomorrow in Hot Springs. That means that the proposed changes to Hendrix College's charter, designed to reduce the elected Arkansas Conference clergy members on the Board of Trustees from 10 to 5, will be taken up very soon. I brought attention to this issue through this blog post on May 28th. In it, I linked to an article I wrote opposing the proposed changes in the Arkansas United Methodist, which explains why the changes are a bad idea.

Then, in this blog post a week later, I linked to a letter the clergy trustees have written in response to my article. That letter has now been published in the most recent (June 6th) issue of the Arkansas United Methodist, together with a column by the Rev. Bud Reeves, who is one of the Hendrix clergy trustees. Both those articles attempt to respond with reasons why the proposed changes should be passed by the Annual Conference.

Let me say first off that I deeply respect all the clergy men and women who serve on the Hendrix Board of Trustees. For anyone who knows these folks, a quick glance at the list is all it takes to realize that these are some of the most beloved and respected pastors in Arkansas. Their collective wisdom and pastoral experience far outstrip my own. Some of the people on the list are among my close friends and mentors. So I approach this task with more than a little bit of fear and trembling.

But regardless, I think it is important to respond once more on this blog, for those of you who are following the debate. We need to examine the method of reasoning that the clergy trustees are using. Doing so, I contend, will show that it is deeply flawed. Since the clergy trustees' letter and Rev. Bud Reeves' column cover the same ground in pretty similar ways, I will deal with the issues they raise together. I you would like to download a version of the following response in a Word document, you can do so here. Okay, on to the matter at hand...

The trustees' letter takes issue with the title of my article, which suggests that the future of the Hendrix - UMC connection is "uncertain". The clergy trustees then proceed to describe many of the good church-related activities that are going on currently at the college. I am aware of these ministry efforts, and they are encouraging to me. In fact, I believe in them so much that I have joined in them several times over the past few years, including taking leadership roles in four Hendrix mission trips, preaching at a Hendrix chapel service, meeting with the 'Future Preachers of America' ministry group, and speaking at a 'Tuesday Talks' vocational luncheon. It is nice for the clergy trustees' letter to point out this work (which is largely directed out of the chaplain's office by the Revs. Wayne Clark and J.J. Whitney), but it entirely misses the point of why I suggest that the future of the college-church relationship is uncertain in the first place. The reason the relationship is rendered uncertain is exactly because of the proposed action of the Board of Trustees, which substantively and permanently diminishes the Arkansas Conference's connection with the college.

Since the clergy trustees' letter takes issue with the title of my article, allow me to take issue with the title of theirs. The title of their letter reads, "Hendrix trustees: proposal enriches college/church relation". As justification for this claim, the text of the letter states that the revised charter will allow the college to "broaden the participation of United Methodists by drawing in lay leaders and by making space on the board for clergy representation from beyond the Arkansas Conference." The letter then goes on to do what every clergy trustee or Hendrix administration official with whom I have spoken or e-mailed has done: Situate the context for the proposed changes in the issue of Hendrix's desires for growing national prominence.

This reasoning implies two things that are simply incorrect: First, that the language of the current Hendrix charter inhibits Hendrix from drawing in 'lay leaders' and 'clergy representation from beyond the Arkansas Conference'. And secondly, that a permanent change to the charter is necessary in order to 'make room' for these supposedly underrepresented groups.

In truth, there is nothing in the Hendrix charter that keeps the college from asking nationally prominent UM clergy or laity from serving on the Board of Trustees. Ironically enough, the clergy trustees' letter itself admits that 18 of the current 30 lay trustees are United Methodists. That, in and of itself, shows that there is ample room on the Board for lay United Methodists. And if the Hendrix administration wants more, it can simply ask some when current non-UM trustees rotate off. Likewise, if the need is for more nationally-prominent UM clergy, then the Hendrix administration should simply seek some of them out.

In much the same way, there is no reason that a change in the charter is necessary for Hendrix's rise in national prominence. The real problem behind this aspect of the debate is the subtle suggestion that we are dealing with a zero-sum game. That is, the clergy trustees are suggesting that a growth in national prominence (coupled with a large number of national figures on the Board) requires a diminishing of the Arkansas Conference presence. There is no reason why this should be the case. If the idea is for there to be a true enrichment of the college-church relationship, then the best way to do it is to maintain the current strength of the Arkansas Conference relationship while finding creative ways to add trustees from other areas of the country.

A change of the magnitude to the Hendrix charter we are being asked to consider requires that a compelling case be made to the Annual Conference for that change. We have seen no such compelling case.

Since the Arkansans who are delegates to the Arkansas Conference are going to have to grapple with an argument by 10 Arkansas clergy trustees, who will try to convince them why 5 of those same trustees shouldn't exist, let me close with some thoughts on the importance of the relationship between the Arkansas Conference and Hendrix College.

Consider how our lives are only meaningful insofar as they arise out of a story, which we are given and in which we live. We don't just hatch out of eggs, ready and able to take on the world from our births. We are the products of families and communities and traditions, and we do not have the freedom to divorce ourselves from those sources of our identity. We can try to do so, but the result will leave us with lives that are morally unintelligible and based on the arbitrary of emotive choice. We Christians, of all people, should realize this. We are the ones who have been grafted like a wild olive shoot onto the tree of Israel, who "now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root" (Romans 11:17). The branch forgets its rootedness in the tree at its peril.

Hendrix's connections to the United Methodist Church of Arkansas (and its predecessors) are not generalized and conceptual; they are historical and concrete. Many of us have heard the stories of Captain W.W. Martin's role in bringing the college to Conway and his financial subsidies that kept the doors open in difficult times. We all know the high number of clergy who have served as college presidents. We can look back in the college's history and see how much investment the People called Methodists in Arkansas have made to Hendrix, allowing it to grow into the great college it is today. This is the story that Hendrix arises out of, and it is what gives the college its identity.

In addition, in the opening section of the Hendrix charter, we see that historical and concrete connection through the express purpose of the college's existence. Article 1, Section 3 states, "The purpose of the corporation shall be (1) to own and operate a co-educational college at Conway, Arkansas, and such other schools, academies, and colleges at Conway or elsewhere as may be deemed advisable; and (2) to carry out the plans, past and future, of the Conferences of the United Methodist Church in Arkansas for the development of Christian education through this institution." That statement strikes me as remarkable. Hendrix College has a two-fold purpose etched into its very charter, and that purpose is to be a college and to be related to the UMC in Arkansas for the purpose of Christian education. In that sense, the argument about Hendrix's growing national prominence is contrary to the college's very purpose for existence if such prominence comes at the expense of its Arkansas church ties.

I am a strong proponent of increasing Hendrix's national prominence, so long as that growth does not come at the expense to the Arkansas Conference of the United Methodist Church. The reason I am compelled to oppose the proposed charter revisions is that they would, in a real and concrete sense, diminish that connection. But then again, I don't think this is an either/or issue. I think it should be entirely possible to grow in national prominence and grow in the sense of the Arkansas Conference connection. The key issue is how we go about doing both.

I admit that there is a certain oddity to being a clergy person opposing a course of action that all the clergy people on the Hendrix Board of Trustees support. You might ask, "Don't they know better what path Hendrix should take?" And here I think it is important to note the reason that the Hendrix Board of Trustees has to take proposed charter revisions before the Annual Conference in the first place. The constitution of Hendrix's governance is set up so that the church has some guiding oversight to major projects or changes the college wants to make. The presence of clergy trustees is one aspect of that oversight. But the requirement to take proposed revisions to the Annual Conference is another. As a member of the Annual Conference and an alumnus of the college, I think it is both appropriate and helpful for us to consider a perspective different from one that would substantively and permanently reduce the Arkansas Conference - Hendrix College connection. When delegates to the Annual Conference prepare to vote on this issue, I hope they'll consider what the long history between the college and the church in Arkansas means and how voting 'yes' to the proposed revisions would affect that relationship in the future.

Hendrix College and the UMC

I am a 1998 graduate of Hendrix College, in Conway, AR. Hendrix is a small liberal-arts college that has been affiliated with the United Methodist Church (or its predecessors) since its founding. It offers a top-notch academic education, and I am grateful for my experience there as an undergraduate.

If you are a Methodist who attended a Methodist-related college or university, you know how strange college-church relations can be at most of "our" schools. Methodists frankly don't know how to do church-related higher education anymore (there are some specific historical and cultural reasons for this, which I will not go into right now). The resulting confusion can often lead to strained relationships between the church and its colleges.

My own alma mater of Hendrix is a great example of just such a strained relationship. There are some aspects of its church-relatedness that are laudable. The second of the missions to Peru this month that I've been writing about was - that's right - a group of Hendrix students who were wanting to learn more about the church in Peru and wanting to help out with earthquake rebuilding efforts. The college thought enough of the mission to ask a clergy alumnus (me) to lead it. That kind of stuff is great.

But then, there's other stuff. For instance, the president of Hendrix, Dr. Tim Cloyd, has pushed through a proposed change to the Hendrix Charter that would reduce the number of Arkansas United Methodist clergy on the Board of Trustees by half. Currently, ten clergy in full connection serve on a 42-person Board (along with the bishop and director of conference ministries, who serve in an ex-officio capacity). The change would reduce that number to five clergy. The newly freed up five Board members would be United Methodist, either clergy or laity, from anywhere in the U.S.

The key question here is why. Here's a school that has grown by leaps and bounds over the past few years in every measurable category - from enrollment, to endowment, to academic programs, to buildings. The church doesn't seem to have stood in its way in any of that growth. So why take what can only be seen as a punitive action against the church in Arkansas by reducing its presence on the Board of Trustees?

Talk to clergy and laity in Arkansas, and you'll hear dozens of possible reasons. Some say this is the inevitable next step in a relationship that has been declining for decades. Some suggest that this is a punitive move by the administration, in response to the Annual Conference's decision last year to equalize funding with historically black, UM-related Philander Smith College in Little Rock. Some current Hendrix students and alumni both, who are particularly unhappy with the president, suggest that it is just one more example of his insistence on remaking the college in his own image.

From talking to people related to the college, I get the sense that the administration will argue that this will actually strengthen the church-college relationship by allowing the college to stock the Trustees with nationally prominent clergy and laity from other states. A memo by President Cloyd to the Hendrix faculty and staff, dated February 19th of this year, classified the proposed changes as one of a number of "important actions" that would move Hendrix closer to being a "national leader" in "engaged liberal arts and sciences education." But there are at least four problems with the administration's line:

1) The stated purpose of the college (see Hendrix Charter, Article 1, Section 3) is to "carry out the plans, past and future, of the Conferences of the United Methodist Church in Arkansas for the development of Christian education through [the college]." The statement of purpose in the Charter doesn't say anything about the UMC in other states or annual conferences, and thus it is somewhat confusing for the college to argue that the Arkansas Conference should acquiesce in its own diminishment on the Board of Trustees. And besides, the administration simply isn't offering anything (yet) about how this will strengthen the relationship between the college and the church in Arkansas. It will be curious to see if that changes.

2) The college's reasoning will most likely rely on a very optimistic view about how the five freed-up Trustees positions will be filled in the coming years. That is, it will assume that the college will continue to seek Trustees with strong United Methodist connections who care a lot about the church-college relationship. Anyone familiar with how and why people get chosen to serve on such boards knows this is unlikely when competing against other needs (deep pockets, influence, political connections, etc.). This is not to say that it's wrong to ask wealthy and powerful people to serve on the Board. And it's not to say that such people can't have strong UM connections. But it is to say that preachers fall pretty far down the list of attractive candidates for such a Board. And it is also to say that church commitments tend to lose out to other priorities by those whose first commitment is not to the church. The clergy who are selected are selected because they, as people who are by definition committed to the church, have been constitutionally included in the makeup of the Board in the college's charter. Laity who happen to be UM and are selected may or may not put the interests of the church first, but the fact of their church membership will never be the sole reason they are chosen for Board membership.

3) There has been the suggestion by some people that at least some of the five freed-up positions will be filled by nationally prominent clergy. Now, I grant that one or two megachurch or big steeple pastors may be asked to serve in the early years. But the likelihood that the College is still going to voluntarily seek out preachers for its Board of Trustees 10 or 20 years down the road - after the debate around the charter changes has been forgotten - is (in my opinion) slim.

4) A key administration argument is that the proposed changes will allow the college to reach out to committed Methodists (clergy or lay) in other parts of the country. This ignores one huge question: If the college cares that much about including prominent Methodists on its board, why doesn't it just ask some of them to serve? There is no change to the charter needed for this. With a 42-member Board, it can ask all the Methodist clergy and laity from around the country that it wants! And herein lies the key to seeing through the flawed reasoning around Hendrix's proposal. Ask yourself this question: If the Hendrix administration truly wants to strengthen its ties to the church, why does it feel like it has to make permanent changes to the college charter that actually diminish the number of clergy on the Board of Trustees? I continued to miss the logic in that line of reasoning.

Ironically enough, I learned about the proposed change by accident through a chance conversation in April. This is the type of thing that the administration would probably like to have flown under the radar, so it could be presented at Annual Conference and approved without a lot of debate. But as an alumnus of the college, Hendrix is my alma mater - my nurturing mother. And like all alumni, I have a responsibility to look out for her well-being. So I've penned an op-ed piece in the Arkansas United Methodist newspaper that highlights the proposed changes. Here it is, in three PDF files because it was spread out over three different sections of the paper:

Hendrix College and the UMC, page 1

Hendrix College and the UMC, page 2

Hendrix College and the UMC, page 3

The catch is that the Annual Conference has to approve any changes to the Hendrix Charter. If the Conference says no, the charter stays as it is. I actually want to improve the relationship between Hendrix and the Arkansas Conference, so my article offers some suggestions. I welcome any conversation here on this blog.

What's your mission?

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?