CLAREMONT RESPONDS TO SANCTION
FROM THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
CLAREMONT, CALIF. – The administration of Claremont School of Theology learned last week that the University Senate of The United Methodist Church placed the School on Public Warning and embargoed denominational funds for the remainder of the School’s fiscal year.
According to a statement issued this week by the Senate, the action was taken because the School failed to provide a current audit and management letter and to consult fully with United Methodist authorities about the reorientation of its mission and proposed development of a theological university. A review team will conduct a site visit at the School later this spring.
“Indeed, this is unwelcome news from within the Methodist connection.” said President Jerry Campbell, who assumed the position in 2006 when the School was troubled with accreditation issues and budgetary shortfalls.
“We provided the Senate with our most recent audit as requested, which happened to be for the 2007-08 fiscal year,” Campbell said. “We also provided a detailed budget for the 2008-09 budget year since the audit was not yet completed. Our new auditing firm is very thorough, and we expect a clean audit by mid-February.”
In 2008, the Claremont Board of Trustees approved new statements of mission and vision to develop a graduate-level theologically focused university. Currently, the 31-member board is comprised of 26 United Methodist clergy and lay members, including two bishops.
“As a professional in the auditing profession, and a committed Methodist layperson, I take this work very seriously,” said Board Chair Sandra N. Bane, who in 1998 retired as a partner with the international auditing firm KPMG. “I am very disappointed that the Church is halting funding during this time of Claremont’s growth, especially considering the prevailing economic climate of our nation.”
“In the meantime, to maintain a balanced budget and our fiduciary responsibilities, this action forces us to seek funding from sources other than The United Methodist Church so that we might maintain commitments to our dedicated students and faculty,” she added.
In 2006, the School faced sanctions from its regional accrediting body, as well as the Association of Theological Schools, due to issues of financial integrity and sustainability, institutional integrity, and planning. By 2009 under the leadership of President Campbell, the institution was deemed to be in full compliance with the standards of both agencies through rigorous review processes.
“I am confident we will be able to respond positively to the fiduciary and procedural concerns expressed by the University Senate in its communication to us,” Campbell said. “This action is not a statement about the quality of education at Claremont. Our students continue to be attracted by our faculty’s reputation for excellence and innovation. And our graduates remain eligible for ordination in The United Methodist Church.”
Read President Campbell’s full response on his blog The President’s Pen.
The University Senate, working in conjunction with the Commission on Theological Education and the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry, is a sanctioning body within The United Methodist Church. It is tasked with examining the ways in which schools, colleges and universities are related to the church. Current members of the Commission, which made the recommendations, include:
- Philip A. Amerson, president of Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary
- Rev. David Bard of Duluth, Minn.
- Maxine Clarke Beach, dean of Drew University Theological School
- Rev. Beth Downs of Glen Allen, Vir.
- Jan Love, dean of Candler School of Theology
- David McAllister-Wilson, President of Wesley Theological Seminary*
- Jay Rundell, president of Methodist Theological School in Ohio
- William A. Willimon, bishop of the North Alabama Annual Conference
Established in 1885, Claremont School of Theology is an ecumenical and inter-religious institution of The United Methodist Church in Southern California. In 1957, it moved to its current location among the prestigious Claremont Colleges.
* The initial version of this document referred to Dr. McAllister-Wilson as the dean of Wesley Theological Seminary. We regret this unfortunate error.
# # #
For more information or additional comment, please contact:
Jon Hooten | Director of Communication
1325 N. College Ave., Claremont, CA 91711
(909) 447-2558 | publicrelations@cst.edu
[...] is a news release about [...]
I am outraged at the implications of the University Senate’s “Public Warning” and encouraged by President Campbell’s response. As a member of the CST Board of Trustee’s I am proud of and committed to the vision we have proposed for CST’s future and the future of theological education in North America.
As a CST alum I was moved to tears of JOY when I got the letter regarding the new mission and direction of the school. Both my husband and I are alumnus and we keep up on the goings on over there with much attention and interest.
When I saw the posts begin to happen on Facebook about this sanction I was again moved to tears – this time tears of sorrow for the United Methodist Church who seems to be so stuck in their breaurocracy that they cannot rise to meet the future.
It would be helpful if we knew exactly how much this will impact the school financially so that those who are able can step up to help cover the gap.
Uh…why is Phil Amerson, our most recent former president who left under distressed circumstances, on this Commission? Isn’t that a conflict of interest somehow?
I would like to have my voice heard:
It is totally unethical that a former president, who never was able to balance the books during his time at CST and who was nicknamed Hurricane Phil, is on a commission that now judges CST. Phil Amerson should have immediately resigned from this commission. Now, there is not one person who will read this so-called warning without realizing that there is some sort of revenge going on. I truly had hoped that the Methodist Church would have been smarter and I hope that they will soon realize that they had forgotten to first read the sign on the wall, pointing to a new and better future, before uttering warnings like this.
Greetings from Scotland, from your devoted ambassador abroad!
I, too, am very encouraged by the innovative direction Claremont is taking in order to face our current and emerging religious, national and world culture. The church and the world needs a quality institution reflecting the highest academic standards of our faith leading the way forward through the ever-constant stormy seas of inter-cultural progress. Claremont nation, know you are supported in the conservative reaches of the Seven Rivers District of the Pacific Northwest Conference — at least by this pastor and proud alum.
Regarding Claremont’s mission statement, I recommend reading John Cobb’s article, “Is Theological Pluralism Dead in the U.M.C.” (in: Doctrine and Theology in The United Methodist Church. Thomas A. Langford, ed. Nashville, TN: Kingswood Books, 1991. Pp.162ff.) Cobb’s objections and predicted consequences to the change of the Theological Statement in the 1972 Discipline (which he helped formulate) to the biblicism of the 1988 statement are now coming true with a new generation of episcopal leaders. (I noted Bishop Willimon on the committee that gave Claremont a negative review.)
In reformulating the “quadrilateral,” Cobb writes of the 1988 statement: “The statement proposed to replace this one formulates the relationships quite differently. Scripture is no longer merely first among equals; it is treated in a separate section, with the other three grouped together as resources to be used in interpreting it.” (164) This leads to a shift in theological authority, which is momentous compared to our more inclusive and open-minded approach in the 1972 statement.
In writing on the variety of different theologies on the spectrum, the reduction of theology to biblical hermeneutics of a conservative, orthodox type leads to this: “If the report is adopted by General Conference, these footholds for a variety of theological programs [i.e., those based more on tradition, reason, and experience] may become extremely important for individual United Methodist theologians. But even if they allow some continued diversity in theological programs within the denomination, the theological climate will change. Theological options that have heretofore been fully accepted as part of the conversation will be forced to defend their right to continue as such. Those who want to rid the denomination of its theological confusion by suppressing diversity will be strengthened. Presumably this was intended by many of those opposing theological pluralism along with the full recognition of tradition, experience, and reason as sources of guidelines for theology.” (167)
He goes on to point out the chilling effect the 1988 statement has had on schools of theology preparing people for ordination and upon the U. M. Boards of Ordained Ministry themselves.
While it took several decades to see what that statement means in practice, it seems clear now. If Bishop Willimon’s (and I suppose, the Council of Bishops as a whole) push to get rid of the guaranteed appointment for clergy with full conference membership succeeds, who can tell what grounds will be used to fire us? We may again see heresy trials, as Cobb speculates. Crossing the bishop on theology to maintain one’s intellectual integrity will become a standard part of the cost of discipleship with career-changing repercussions.
By giving up the guaranteed appointment, the bishops’ power, already considerable, will be even more hierarchical and open to abuse with or without objective standards of pastoral evaluation.
It does not help that many progressive and liberal clergy dismiss theology as unimportant once they leave seminary. Theological issues are now church-political issues. We have a huge educational problem with adults who hardly know what theological options are out there. The brightest young people will hardly stay with a church that has nothing to say to them.
While my suggestions may not help Claremont with its immediate problem, in the long run, it would help to return to the 1972 statement of the quadrilateral. If we are truly an “open-minded” church as advertised, let’s practice that.
I have no illusions that this will be easy with the southern conferences controlling General Conference votes. Nebraska (my a.c.) is the one conference in the South Central Jurisdiction that is not heavily influenced by the Bible belt and its fundamentalist views of biblical authority. (This may change as we join with the Kansas conferences under a theologically conservative bishop). That view, however, controls United Methodist thinking about church growth in this jurisdiction. I know, because I attend jurisdictional church growth institutes, where the governing assumption is that only through Jesus Christ can we be saved and that people outside the church are “lost.” This is probably the underlying theological notion in the committee’s objection to Claremont’s new and exciting mission as a world leader in theological education.
I have another sugggestion. If clergy can be judged “incompetent” by bishops, justifying termination, shouldn’t the same thing apply to bishops? (Remember the “Peter Principle?”) As Bishop Scott Jones said (no liberal himself), the bishops don’t even hold themselves accountable for the things they require of clergy in the way of church growth and stewardship. I assume he knows.
I would therefore promote term episcopacy. Elect bishops for an initial twelve year term, and depending upon an objective review by the same criteria applied to clergy generally, give them additional four-year terms based upon their success. This would keep them on their toes, if they want to keep their job. Otherwise, they can do something else more suited to their skill sets.