The Confessing Movement is an unofficial caucus within the United Methodist Church that seeks to maintain or revert the doctrine and practice of the UMC to traditional/orthodox perspectives.
One of the CM’s constant criticisms is of the seminaries (the academy) because all that pesky knowledge past the 17th century, interaction with other valid ways of believing, and varieties of theological tools seem to get in the way of doctrinal rigidity. Oddly enough.
Their attack line in the past few years has been to focus on the cost per graduating seminarian with the framework that some seminaries don’t graduate as many Methodist clergy as others and yet they get the same funding as the ones that graduate a lot. They seem to often take aim at the two UM seminaries who are closest to my heart: Boston University (BU), my alma mater, and Claremont (CST), the California seminary that does lots of interfaith work and indeed now is a multi-faith initiative.
Here’s one of the CM’s articles from 2011.
In 2009 Boston School of Theology received $863,235 dollars from the Ministerial Education Fund (MEF). For this investment a grand total of seven students in 2008 received United Methodist ordination at the cost of $123,319 per student. The School of Theology at Claremont did a bit better; ten students from Claremont were in the newly ordained elders and deacons 2008 class in the various conferences. The church’s investment per Claremont ordained student totaled $84,967.
And now this week’s article from 2012:
Last year the United Methodist Church gave Claremont $869,000 in funding. During that year a total of eight United Methodist students graduated. Figure that cost per student! Just imagine what that $869,000 could have produced if it had been designated for seminary training in Africa!
So their basic point is that the UMC is investing over $100k per student who graduates from these two particular heathen seminaries. Why are we wasting so much money on them? The “good” Methodist seminaries (as if there is such a thing to the CM) churn out preachers more efficiently and the cost-per-graduate is half the above in some cases.
If I was a bit arrogant, I would say this:
- Both seminaries are in the American mission fields of United Methodism: BU in New England, CST in the Western Jurisdiction. Both of these annual conferences have had significant membership losses during the past few decades and are now practically considered to be mission fields due to their high numbers of non-Christians and, moreso, non-Methodists. Is there any wonder that less UMs go to these mission outposts than the other seminaries who have it easy and are reflecting their predominantly Christian culture? So do we abandon the mission posts to Satan (rhetorically or literally)? And how many Southern pastors are applying to move to these mission fields, anyway?
If I was rather arrogant, I would say this:
- Both seminaries train more religious specialists than pastors. I’m in the minority as a pastor in my class as most were going onto higher education or social services positions. Doesn’t it take more money and training to be a specialist? Ones who can be a Protest Chaplain with Occupy Wall Street and know how to use nonviolent rhetoric and action? Ones who can advocate with Interfaith Worker Justice and know how to reinforce workers self-worth to God and to each other? Ones who can create novel approaches to interfaith dialogue so they can share a common mission to serve others even as they keep their own values and identites. Ones who…you get my drift? Little wonder that it takes less money per student at some other seminaries: they train primarily pastors. Even though each individual pastor has obviously amazing gifts and graces and can customize their advanced classes, the approach is more broad than specialized. Just as it costs more to become a specialist surgeon than a family practice doctor, religious specialists cost more money but hopefully give back knowledge and practices that benefit the whole. Don’t mistake my meaning with this paragraph: It doesn’t make them better, but it does make them more expensive.
And if I was really arrogant, I would say this:
- Look, I’m worth $100,000 dollars. I could have taken my presumed gifts to other venues. I could have applied my computer skills and be earning $100k as a computer specialist. I could have applied my writing skills and be earning $100k a year from journalistic endeavors. I can pantomime as well. 😉 Instead I’m serving a church that I won’t even earn half those wages until I’m probably 40, much less $100k a year unless I go the mega-church route (doubtful). Some of my friends are powerful singers and writers and technical specialists but instead of going the way of fame and money, they became pastors, to our benefit. Are we worth it?
- Here’s the kicker: even if I paid a full tithe on my $100k a year, it would be far less than the amount I encourage my church to pay its full apportionment each year (which they do) as a pastor. And given that each clergyperson costs the denomination 2.1 million dollars if they have a 40 year tenure, my full personal tithe of that would be $210,000. Back to the church that contributed to my education. So really, I’m worth $100k and so are hundreds of seminarians like me. [restart humility]
Luckily, I’m not really that arrogant so I’m not going to say those things….oops. 😉
Can we do better? Can we make the cost-per-student ratio better? Of course. I just fail to see how $100k per seminary student is not a good investment, even if other seminaries manage a smaller cost-per-student ratio. Are we seeking efficient graduations or effective graduates? My hope is the latter, and if so, then a variety of gifts, the many parts of the Body of Christ…some parts just cost more. And that’s okay.
Thoughts?
Often I think the better question is, “how much are two seminarians worth?” When you are a part of a clergy couple, both people are hit with a great amount of debt, and are living on around 35k a year when you take out the crazy taxes we have to pay because of self employment. Frankly, that’s around poverty level.
Additionally, many annual conferences are looking at having more part time appointments, so the question also is should we even had this extensive of an education? Another question is not only, are WE worth 100k, but is the education that we will actually use worth 100k? When our annual conferences do not honor clergy education, the worth and value of clergy decrease. I think perhaps this problem is larger than the money itself, but stems from our commitment, or lack of, to clergy formation and education as a whole.
I’m a Boston University School of Theology grad too. And I really appreciate the idea of United Methodist Seminaries doing work in US mission fields. Places like BU are research facilities, with research faculties, helping to shape a new way of ministry to new generations of people who are not very interested in what passes for Christian living in many of our churches. We need places where serious students and serious scholars will spend serious time (which all costs serious cash) to experiment and discover a new Methodist way for a new Methodist generation.
Here lies the problem…..it would take a career for most ministers to pay off the loans required unless they have their own money or a friend (in the instance of St. Luke’s Sr. Pastor) who pays/paid his tuition. I don’t know that it is just a question about the worth of individual but the value of a $100,000 degree in ministry or social service. Frankly University jobs are few and far between and could also take a career to pay off unless you are supplementing with publishing mainline articles or books. I totally agree with you points in this post, but I cannot get past the financial realities.
As far as the question are you getting a better education at BU or CST….ABSOLUTELY. I was terribly jealous when I finished my Masters at OCU (I finished on a full scholarship and a 4.0) and wanted to join some of my undergrad classmates and go on to BU for my PHD. This is when financially it just didn’t make sense. Honestly, my husband said NO and even the feminist in me could not come up with a convincing argument. 🙂
@Amy Curran: What do you mean by your reference to “St. Luke’s Sr. Pastor”? Are you referring to Tyrone Gordon, who earlier this week gave up his ministerial credentials rather than face an investigation? The North Texas Conference and the St. Luke’s congregation have been especially tight-lipped about the reasons behind Gordon’s departure, so I’d appreciate any information you may have. Thanks.
Sorry…..I was not specific. St. Lukes UMC in Oklahoma City. It is a great church and he is a great minister, but I am not sure that this situation (having a family friend pay for Seminary) is a sustainable situation. How often does that happen? St. Lukes is one of the few congregations in OK that could afford Clergy with a $100,000 education (if loans are involved.)
I think you are skirting the Confessing Movement’s bigger issue wirh Claremont. The last time I checked the UMC was a Christian denomination. So why is a UMC seminary openly, deliberately, training pastors of other faiths? This goes against one of the foundations of our faith: “Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.” We can’t start out being referred to as “the way” but later say there are other ways. For me, this is the issue with Claremont.
That is the bigger issue but if so, then the CM should stick to it. Bringing in the money that we give to the seminaries should come with accountability and strings attached, and that’s for the University Senate and GBHEM to decide. That’s all fine. It’s even fine to better the cost-per-student ratio. That’s all fine. What isn’t fine is to say that it’s a waste of money, as seminarians like myself would hopefully disagree.
Arguments are only as strong as their points, so the CM should choose them wisely.
Allen,
CST isn’t training pastors of other faiths–that would be presumptuous and foolhardy. Instead, some generous UM board of trustee members from CST gave a $50 million grant (that’s $100,000 X 500, by the way 🙂 ) for the creation of a new entity, Claremont Lincoln University, that CST would be a partner in along with a Rabbinical school and a school that trains Muslims for leadership roles in that faith, and apparently a Jain institution has recently come on board as well. Each of those entities trains their own “pastors,” but does so in the midst of the community of faiths. Participation in CLU is completely optional for students at CST, much like CST has been a member institution in Claremont Graduate University. You can find out more here: http://www.claremontlincoln.org/ Notice CST is still at http://www.cst.edu/ It sounds to me like Confessing Movement either doesn’t understand how this is organized, would prefer for seminarians to be trained in a vacuum, or just doesn’t like the fact that Muslims are included in the consortium. CST has been involved in “Intersem” which got us together with students from Fuller and a couple Rabbinical schools since before I was there. I never heard any complaints about that.
In my opinion, this is one of the most exciting things that any of our seminaries are doing. I think more might be on board with the idea if they understood the scope and vision of the project. I know I would have loved to have had the opportunity when I was there to attend, and it would have prepared me well for the ministry I now have where we are located right across the street from the student Mosque, am involved in clergy groups including Rabbi Sherman at Temple Israel, host Jewish and Muslim children in our day-school (and yes, we have a “chapel time,” so my experience with these two faiths has been beneficial there, too), and we also host ESL classes administered by TU in our church building (around 60% of the students are Muslim, I’d say), and I have daily encounters with those students.
The cynical side of me would say that the Confessing Movement isn’t interested in presenting the truth when they can use distortion to make their point.
Jeremy,
As always, thanks for the perspective. And yes, I would say those we train are worth it.
I do need to note an inaccuracy in your description of Claremont School of Theology, however. I don’t think you did this intentionally. The reality of what has happened there has not been accurately reported in many quarters, so I just want to make sure you help others get this straight.
Claremont School of Theology has NOT become an interfaith institution. It is a Christian Seminary related to the United Methodist Church, preparing Christian leaders for professional leadership in the UMC and several other Christian denominations.
What HAS happened is that the University with which Claremont is connected (Claremont Lincoln University) has started ADDITIONAL professional training schools for students of several other religions and brought them together in a consortium. The separate institutions are entirely separately incorporated. Students enrolled at Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University CAN take some coursework in the other institutions, and vice versa, just as they students in many seminaries and universities can take coursework in other kinds of institutions and potentially have that count toward their professional or academic degree– and indeed, of course, this is common for nearly ALL post-undergrad education in the US.
So… as you can, please do what you can to debunk the myth (false accusation, actually) that Claremont School of Theology has become an interfaith seminary. And join me in telling the real story when some version of the false one is presented.
For more info, see the Claremont Lincoln page, where the distinctions between these three related but different institutions are spelled out in greater detail:
http://claremontlincoln.org/about/a-new-university/a-model-for-solutions/
Thanks!
That is really helpful, twbe. I did keep perpetuating a misunderstanding and thanks for giving clarity to it.
United Methodist students who go on to be ordained as elders in the UMC also takes classes at these institutions, even if they are not enrolled. I took five classes at Boston University School of Theology, but graduated from a different seminary. I greatly appreciated my classes at the School of Theology.
My wife graduated from Boston University School of Theology and has worked full time in a church and did a CPE fellowship, but is not an ordained elder. She is now working towards ordination as an elder at a different seminary. It is more complicated than simply how many graduate and become ordained in any given year.
Jeremy –
I blame you and a few others for making me a lazy blogger, because now, for important issues, I can just say: Yeah, what he said, and link to your post on facebook.
I’m SO glad you’re raising these issues, Jeremy, but this time I disagree with some of your responses, because I think you’re allowing the debate to remain on the CM’s terms – which, as usual, are very UN-Wesleyan. This is NOT about $ per student – that’s called funding scholarships. This is about supporting entire schools. Since John Wesley’s day, Methodists have pooled together their pennies, dimes, or dollars to do more together than they could have alone – and one of the first things that’s done with that money is to offer Wesleyan education.
I’d echo your points about mission field & training religious specialists. The Call to Action report highlights something even the report’s detractors often agree with: our denomination needs more engaged & effective lay leadership. I know dozens of seminary-trained lay leaders who are making tremendous, evangelistic impact on the local church, state, regional, and sometimes even global levels. Often, they went to seminary precisely because it WAS a UMC seminary. Don’t we want more leaders like this? [Yes, I know we’re talking about the Ministerial Education Fund, but in the UMC, lay people are ministers too.]
More than that, I’d point out that seminaries don’t ordain people. You get a hood at graduation, not a stole. In New England, you need three years of full-time appointment at a local church to be ordained, but the process usually takes much longer, especially since most of our churches are less than full-time appointments. Of course, the requirements & circumstances in other conferences vary. So how many years do they track seminary graduates, tracing their journeys with DCoMs & BOOMs in Annual & Central Conferences across the globe? No?
And last I checked, the CM only counted people who became elders, not people who were ordained deacons – even though that IS an order into which the UMC & God ordains people. When are they going to start counting the faculty, the impact that their research and teaching that has on the church? When are they going to start counting the people in nearby congregations, who benefit from lectures and conversations from these faculty? We’re a connectional system – why aren’t they thinking about the broader impact these seminaries have on the church, and advocating for realignments where they think the relationships can be improved?
Hmmm, so many things that are untrue or un-Wesleyan about the CM’s take on this. But that’s ok, there are places where you can learn about the ways Methodists have & are ministering in the world, how we organize & prepare ourselves to do God’s work in the world, and how we uphold values like mutual accountability and honesty. They’re UMC-supported schools – schools like BU & CST – where United Methodism is in the very air you breathe.
Sean O makes a very important point.
If indeed all baptized Christians are ministers, and not simply those who go on to become ordained elders or deacons, how appropriate is it that our funding mechanism, the Ministerial Education Fund, ONLY support the educations of persons who are certifiably on a track toward ordination?
There is a financial and reality check involved here as well. In an increasing number of seminaries, including some of our own, a majority of students (and in some cases, a majority enrolled in MDiv programs!) have zero interest in ordained ministry, but great interest in the formation they will receive through these programs for other forms of ministry as laity in the world.
So… for both theological and practical reasons, is funding or measuring only the number of ordained folk who graduate from a given seminary the best metric to determine whether our funding for the formation of church leaders (whether leaders in congregations or in other kinds of ministry settings) is on target? Or might we propose a different set of metrics that would be more in keeping with our stated theology and the practical realities of seminary education today?
We can all agree with Jeremy that he is extremely arrogant.
Too much of this conversation takes place with utter disrespect to the people in the pews who actually PAY THE BILLS. If someone wants the MEF to support religious scholars or other types of vocation besides pastors in the pulpits, then try to pass that at General Conference. Even if it ever “won” there, people will vote with their dollars and funding for the MEF will dramatically decline.
Should we have THIRTEEN official seminaries? Why should any of the MEF funding be equally divided between seminaries with drastically different fruits? Where is the Wesleyan accountability in that???
I would also suggest that it is the dilution of Methodism and Christianity itself by Claremont and Boston that has helped bring pastors with too much doubt to pulpits who then have problems bringing lost souls to Christ. We should not subsidize that. Instead, Jeremy’s arrogance asks the people in the pews to subsidize the destruction of The United Methodist Church for the convenience of people who cavalierly draw a paycheck funded by the tithes and offerings of those same people in the pews who deserve much, much better.
I’m not going to “bite” on most of your comments, Creed, but I would like to speak to why we have 13 UM seminaries. We have 13 UM seminaries because this is a very large country. If you want to be an Assemblies of God pastor, for instance, you only have two choices: move to MO to attend Evangel or move to CA to attend Azusa Pacific. If you happen to live in New England, Florida, or somewhere else far from those places, you have to uproot your entire family, move them to your school, and then move them back when you’re done. That’s not always financially feasible. Those in VT can attend BU and those in OH can attend MTSO (interestingly, MTSO is known in the EOC for being liberal, but it has never been attacked by the Confessing movement). Being big enough to support seminaries in many different places allows for people to keep their families where they are and learn about ministry in their local context.
Mr. Pogue’s comments were so arrogant I assumed it was satire.
Lance, you overwhelm me.
It actually looks like there is only one “official” AOG seminary: AOG Theological Seminary. They have 1.7 million members. So, even if we had four times the members, then thirteen is still too many.
No, Carolyn, we have thirteen “official” seminaries because we have grown by various mergers and kept all the seminaries open. We also have a number of seminaries that are approved by the University Senate but aren’t “official.” United came from the UBC and then the EUB and only eight of the elders and deacons ordained in 2009 came from there. Gammon produced only two of the elders and deacons ordained in 2009. It is likely that Candler (also in Atlanta) probably had at least two African-Americans out of the 32 elders and deacons ordained in 2009 that were from Candler. Claremont and Iliff combined for only five elders and deacons in 2009. Phillips in Tulsa actually produced 12 elders and deacons in 2009.
You may not “bite,” Carolyn, but I will. Having attended BUSTh, I am at a loss to understand where Mr. Pogue finds basis for the factual assertion that it “has helped bring pastors with too much doubt to pulpits who then have problems bringing lost souls to Christ.” I found my experience at BU reinforced my enthusiasm for the Gospel message and taught me valuable tools for spreading that message. Rather than seeking to make automatons for Christ who do not explore their faith, BU taught me how to challenge and nurture others in their faith journey toward deeper discipleship. Evangelism is about so much more than mere justification and “bringing lost souls to Christ;” that is only the beginning. It is also about sanctification and encouraging others to become more Christ-like. That is just some of what I learned at BUSTh. But then again, Mr. Pogue is more interested in making unjustified assertions than in truly understanding whether anything of value goes on at BU School of Theology.
Paul,
Exchanging rhetoric brings a lot of heat but little light. That is why I try to bring facts to the discussion. The New England Annual Conference is one of the largest in land area east of the Mississippi but one has one of the smallest number of members and is steadily declining. If you are nurturing Christians on a path of deeper discipleship, then God bless you. But, a lot of what we hear from Boston and Claremont dilutes the message rather than strengthening it. If our response to “seekers” is to invite them to join us while we blindly stumble around, we shouldn’t be surprised that we get relatively few to enlist.
Wesleyan accountability demands that we look at the fruits that are produced. Why should there be thirteen “official” seminaries other than we don’t want to choose? Why should each seminary receive the same amount from MEF except that we don’t want to create accountability?
I guess Yale is doing well by you. Shouldn’t we change the MEF to follow the student rather than subsidize the schools regardless of what they do?
There’s an angle that doesn’t seem to have been addressed here. We’re considering whether or not certain seminarians are “worth” their $100,000 educations and there can certainly be opposing viewpoints on that. Some no doubt are. Some, over the course of their careers, will provide benefits to the church that can’t be measured monetarily and even if they could, would far exceed that figure or even the larger $2.1 million cost you mention. And others will, over the course of their own careers, not offer a fifth of that either monetarily or otherwise. Different perspectives will color those value judgments; I wouldn’t spend a dime on an Occupy protest chaplain myself but I won’t tell someone who would that they can’t do that.
What we haven’t much touched on is 1) whether or not the church can afford $100,000 seminary graduates and 2) are there steps the church could take to begin to reduce that figure? Other discussions here and there on the blog have touched on the reality that small churches can’t pay salaries that allow a clergy family to cover their expenses and pay off their student loans. We’ve faced that situation for years, but I don’t recall having ever heard of a UM seminarylowering its tuition. I admit it may have happened and I missed it, but I think the almost universal tuition trend is upward.
Are there good steps we could take to exert some downward pressure on seminary tuition? Maybe there are and maybe there aren’t, but it seems to me we would help ourselves if we looked for a few of them. If we don’t, the worth of the UM seminarian may become moot because fewer and fewer churches will be able to pay the cost. You may be right and UM seminarians are a high-quality end-product worth $100,000, just like Lamborghinis are high-quality automobiles worth $100,000 and more. But Lamborghini sold just 1,500 cars in 2009, while Toyota sold almost 357,000 Camrys — and probably not just because all 357,000 of those folks would rather drive an LE sedan than a Gallardo LP560-4.
Absolutely right!!
There are differences between a seminary as a professional school and graduate schools of theology. The MEF is supposed to support the studies for people planning to be in the pulpit. Obviously, that isn’t the only worthwhile purpose of a seminary but it is the only one that is subsidized by the MEF which comes from the people in the pews.
We really need to look at the current syllabus for a M. Div. How many master’s degrees take THREE YEARS of full-time study? A law degree is a Juris DOCTOR.
It’s not about whether you are worth $100,000. It’s about whether the education you receive is worth $100k, plus tuition fees. Based on your computer/writing skills, you should be charging time spent at $100k/year opportunity cost, so that’s probably the biggest cost of all. Is your seminary education worth half a million dollars to you? Is it worth the equivalent cost to all seminarians? Are valuable potential candidates dissuaded by that high, up-front cost?
For example, an alternative to spending three years on education at the start of a forty year career, is to spend one month a year on education, full time, every year, over the course of a 44 year career. What are the pros and cons of each approach?
My thought on all of this is if Creed married someone named Bess, they could be known as Pogue and Bess. They could roam across forums everywhere in the land and post nonsense together. Creed: spend less time spreading your posts across the land and more on saving souls.