No one expected Claremont to become another Asbury, but who knew that the liberal theological school would move even further away from its Methodist roots? The United Methodist Reporter has been covering the school’s new multifaith university project, and with the exception of a couple of comments from me and Riley Case, the Reporter’s latest article paints Claremont’s pluralism experiment mostly as a positive development.

One thing Reporter editor Robin Russell didn’t really explore in her piece was the money angle. When the UMC University Senate initially withheld $800,000 from Claremont, the school didn’t blink because it didn’t have to– the controversial project was already being supported by a $10 million pledge from David and Joan Lincoln, a United Methodist couple from Arizona. The Lincolns obviously believe in the vision that Claremont has presented, a vision which, according to an article in In Trust magazine, was a result of financial necessity as much as anything else. Flashback to 2006:

Claremont had run up major deficits for three years, financing them by deep draws on its endowment. Enrollment was falling precipitously. Key faculty members were leaving. The school’s two accrediting agencies had placed them on probation. And on [president Jerry] Campbell’s desk was a new letter from the Western Association of Schools and Colleges announcing that CST’s regional accreditation would be terminated effective August 10 unless he asked for a review of the decision. The letter stated that Claremont’s administration had demonstrated an inability to provide sound financial management. Moreover, it said, “the administration did not engage in honest and open communication with the accreditor” and thus lacked “institutional integrity.”

Claremont brought in Duane Dyer (now the school’s development VP) and the school’s reinvention of itself began to emerge:

As [John] Dickason wrestled with accreditation issues, it became clear to him, as it did to others, that the challenge was more than simply economizing or marketing. Rather, Claremont School of Theology needed new educational goals, a new mission, perhaps a new identity. The status quo was actually more risky than change. In the midst of this ferment, the idea of an interreligious university began to emerge. A new university would build on CST’s strengths but take them further. It would de-emphasize denominationalism in favor of interfaith cooperation.

So is it really possible that the University Project is being driven more by finances than by conviction? Don’t misunderstand me here, Claremont was already on the left end of the theological spectrum, so the latest move certainly isn’t a stretch. And the In Trust article was quite fair to Claremont– hardly a hatchet job. Yet there it is in black and white. School officials admitted as much. The University Project essentially came from a desire to preserve Claremont as an institution, not from a passion for pluralism. It’s analogous to MSNBC’s move a few years ago from being a fairly reputable (albeit left of center) news channel to being Fox News lite and finally settling on being the anti-Fox News. For NBC Universal it was about finding a lucrative niche. Claremont is betting that its niche is going to be be multifaith education. Whether right or wrong, the school that helped put process theology on the map is about to raise the theological stakes and try something really risky. And for now at least, the money is falling into place. A Claremont trustee noted:

[Claremont is] going to thrive not by returning to its Methodist roots, but by spreading its arms. The confessional seminary is a dead duck.

He’s not alone in his thinking– Claremont president Jerry Campbell has already distanced himself from traditional Wesleyan theology. In the Reporter article, Dr. Campbell said that Christians who feel they need to evangelize persons of other faiths have “an incorrect perception of what it means to follow Jesus.”

I wonder what John Wesley would think of that statement.

View Shane Raynor's Profile      Subscribe via RSS