A Rabbi, Pastor & Imam at a Methodist Seminary ...

It sounds like the opening line of a joke, but it's not. Facing declining enrollment, Claremont Colleges Graduate School of Theology in California is now claiming to train and prepare new leaders with a vision of blending divergent world religions.

For background, read Methodist Seminary Trains Pluralistic Clergy



-- From "Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly Listings" Washington Post 10/21/11

Multi_Faith Theological Education — At the Claremont Colleges in California, the Graduate School of Theology has created Claremont Lincoln University, the first multi-faith theological school of its kind. As Saul Gonzalez reports, the new and controversial graduate university is teaching and will grant degrees to students who want to become Christian ministers, Jewish rabbis or Muslim imams, and it plans to include Hindus, Sikhs and others, as well.

From "Multifaith Theological Education" by Saul Gonzalez, Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, PBS 10/21/11

SAUL GONZALEZ, correspondent: . . . California’s Claremont Lincoln University, which describes itself as America’s first interreligious school of theology, one that will train pastors, rabbis, and eventually Muslim imams all on one campus. The school’s philosophy was captured in the opening remarks of Muslim-American religious scholar Najeeba Syeed-Miller, a professor at Claremont Lincoln.

PROFESSOR NAJEEBA SYEED-MILLER: The diversity of humankind is not a curse from God. It is a sign of God’s creation, and the beauty of humanity is in our very differences.

GONZALEZ: What do you hope to accomplish here at Claremont Lincoln? What’s the grand vision?

PHILIP CLAYTON (Provost, Claremont Lincoln University): You have to get beyond the point of people defining their religions by the traditional walls. . . . When you train rabbis in one school, pastors in another, imams in another, you put them out into communities they create an “us versus them” mentality. What if we do something that’s never been done before? Let’s train them in the same classroom. Let’s let them work out their differences in their day-to-day education. When they go out into their communities you won’t find them doing the “us versus them,” but, we hope, the “we.” What that would [do] for the face of religion in America would be staggering.

GONZALEZ: Claremont Lincoln is actually the creation of a much older institution, United Methodist-affiliated Claremont School of Theology, founded in 1885. It partnered with southern California’s Academy of Jewish Religion and the Islamic Center of Southern California to form this new school. Students attending this school can get master’s degrees in divinity, rabbinic studies, and Muslim counseling.

GONZALEZ: Beyond America’s changing religious landscape, there’s another reason why Claremont went multifaith: survival. Like other schools of theology and seminaries during these tough economic times, this campus faced a declining enrollment and a tightening budget. Allowing students from other faiths to train here is one way to keep the lights on and the doors open.

CLAYTON: This is an extremely hard time for American theological schools. We could go on with a dwindling number of Methodists students, but we decided we wanted to be ahead of the curve. . . . we had a 45-year history of being edgy. We were always sort of pushing the envelope, and so we decided we would push the envelope on this one.

To read the entire interview transcript above, CLICK HERE.

From "Donation spurs multifaith university in Claremont" posted at The Christian Century 5/25/11

Looking to support "tolerance and respect among religions," a United Methodist couple has upped its total donation to $50 million to launch a multi­faith university that will educate professional leaders for churches, synagogues and mosques while providing those future clergy with insights into interreligious issues.

The Methodist-affiliated Claremont School of Theology announced May 16 that philanthropists David and Joan Lincoln, who earlier donated $10 million, would be honored in the institution's name—Claremont Lincoln University—as classes begin this fall. Only the seminary will receive money from United Methodist agencies.

A week before the university announcement was made, the New York Times reported that Pitzer College, one of the seven Claremont colleges within walking distance of the seminary, will offer a major in secularism this fall. The new department of secular studies is headed by sociologist Phil Zuckerman, who has written extensively on secularism.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pastors and Rabbis and Imams" by Libby A. Nelson, Inside Higher Ed 10/25/11

Like everything about the newly established university, the vision is ecumenical and ambitious.

As the United States becomes more religiously diverse, with more interfaith marriages and families, the demand for ministers and religious counselors who are comfortable in that atmosphere is "off the charts, no question," says Philip Clayton, Claremont Lincoln's provost.

"Drawing on the wealth of interreligious partnerships is one of the most crucial things that we need to learn for the coming decades," Clayton says. "Frankly, without that resource, I don't think human civilization is going to make it."

"The majority of Methodists embrace the interreligious project as long as the Methodist members participate as Christians in interreligious dialogue,” Clayton says.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "The Amazing Technicolor Multifaith Theology School" by Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary 6/11/10

This move by the Claremont School of Theology illustrates what happens when churches and denominations allow their institutions to embrace theological liberalism. . . . The leftward march of liberal Protestantism is hardly news, but on occasion a development arises that serves as something of a parable of that trajectory.

Liberal Protestantism long ago grew embarrassed by the exclusive claims of biblical Christianity and the historic Christian faith. Adopting pluralist and inclusivist reconstructions of the faith, liberal theologians and theological schools have been pressing the margins for over a century now. Given that trajectory, a multifaith theological seminary was an inevitability — the only question was when and where it would happen.

Mark Tooley, President of The Institute on Religion and Democracy, said that the school’s action meant that it “seems to be moving away from its responsibility to the United Methodist Church.” He added: “It almost seems that they’re trying to fulfill the stereotype that many in the church have of liberal Methodism on the West Coast.”

In a subsequent interview, Tooley, a United Methodist, pointed out that the United Methodist Church has lost nearly half of its membership on the West Coast.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Methodist Seminary Trains Pluralistic Clergy

Saying that not all Muslims – or Christians or Jews for that matter – believe their faith is the only way to God, the United Methodist Church's Claremont School of Theology has launched a program to train leaders for the often-conflicting faiths together.

-- From "Seminary introduces program of religious collaboration" by Michael Carl © 2010 WorldNetDaily 6/25/10

The unorthodox program was announced on the website for the school, and detailed in a statement released by school media-relations officer Claudia Pearce.

"Christians, Muslims and Jews will now have the opportunity to take classes together to learn about each other's religious traditions, to study topics that deal specifically with interfaith issues and to build bridges through coursework that assists them, our society’s future religious leaders, to act collaboratively in response to the various issues that face our society and world," the statement said.

. . . Christian cultural commentator and Cross Talk America radio host Ingrid Schlueter says the Claremont program is a clear compromise of the truth of the Gospel.

"Their new spiritual-blender approach to Christian theological education is to 'teach students to recognize the legitimacy and integrity' of other religious traditions. This, by definition, cannot be Christianity," Schlueter said.

"The founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, declared himself to be the exclusive way to heaven in John 14:6. The founder of Christianity further described the spiritual way to eternal life as 'narrow' in Matthew 7:14," Schlueter explained.

"Clearly Claremont is still teaching theology. It is not, however, Christian theology. It is the new, popular brand of universalism that rejects outright the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ in Holy Scripture and ventures into rank spiritual rebellion in the name of tolerance and cooperation. God's unchanging Word tells us that it is at the name of Jesus that every knee will bow and confess His Lordship. Not Buddha, not Krishna, not Allah or some other god cobbled together in human imagination," Schlueter said.

Schlueter said Claremont is not representative of the doctrine taught by Methodism's founder John Wesley.

"If John Wesley were alive today to see what his heirs were teaching, one could only imagine his anger and grief. Claremont is setting the stage for persecution of biblical Christians who refuse this apostasy. They are casting themselves as Christians, but theirs is a faith that is alien to everything Christians have lived and died for in the last 2,000 years," Schlueter said.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Obamanation: Secularized Like Europe, Spiritualized Like Oprah

If the trends continue, "the Millennial generation will see churches closing as quickly as GM dealerships."

-- From "Survey: 72% of Millennials 'more spiritual than religious'" by Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY 4/27/10

Among the 65% [of 18- to 29-year-olds] who call themselves Christian, "many are either mushy Christians or Christians in name only," [says Thom Rainer, president of LifeWay Christian Resources]. "Most are just indifferent. The more precisely you try to measure their Christianity, the fewer you find committed to the faith."

Key findings in the phone survey, conducted in August and released today:

• 65% rarely or never pray with others, and 38% almost never pray by themselves either.

• 65% rarely or never attend worship services.

• 67% don't read the Bible or sacred texts.

Many are unsure Jesus is the only path to heaven: Half say yes, half no.

The findings, which document a steady drift away from church life, dovetail with a LifeWay survey of teenagers in 2007 who drop out of church and a study in February by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, which compared the beliefs of Millennials with those of earlier generations of young people.

Even among those in the survey who "believe they will go to heaven because they have accepted Jesus Christ as savior":

• 68% did not mention faith, religion or spirituality when asked what was "really important in life."

• 50% do not attend church at least weekly.

• 36% rarely or never read the Bible.

The Pew survey found young people today were significantly more likely than those in earlier generations to say they didn't identify with any religious group. Neither are Millennials any more likely than earlier generations to turn toward a faith affiliation as they grow older.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Click on the headlines below for documentation of the new America. It's inevitable lest sleeping Christians respond to God's Call to The Church.

Hallelujah, Obama Almighty! Media Proclaim

Obama Thankful for Freedom to Not Worship

Fed. Judge: National Day Of Prayer Unconstitutional

Boston Globe Explores Obama as Fake Christian

Czech President: Obama Wrong to Lead U.N. 'Church of Global Warming'

Belgium, a Glimpse of America's Future?

Observer Fears Islamic Takeover of France Imminent

Cardinal Says Secularization of Europe has Doomed it to Islamization

Pope: Societies drifting into a "desert of godlessness"

Methodists Team Up with Atheists for Bible Study

State-controlled BBC Reduces Christian Broadcast Time

Christian Programing Banned from National Public Radio

Today's Latino Immigrants Less Christian

Environmentalist 'Christians' Say Man Controls Nature, Not God

Socialist Government Schools Teach Bestiality

Countering Secularists' Stripping Jesus from History

Oprah Gives Limelight to Pro-homosexual 'Pastors'

Oprah Winfrey: Agent of Moral Insanity

Oprah Winfrey: Leading Many Down the 'Wide Road'

Obama Rocks Cradle of Community Organizers

Texas Teachers Required to Indoctrinate Students

"How do we create a better world? As educators, we must help people to become committed to social change."
- Texas Region 10 mandated studies for the public school educators' program.

-- From "Texas teachers warned against being 'heterosexist'" by Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 12/31/09

Candidates for certification to teach in public schools in Texas are being told that they will be held accountable for any "heterosexist" leanings and must become agents working to change society, according to one candidate who was alarmed by the demands.

The applicant, who requested anonymity for fear of repercussions, told WND part of the teachings on multiculturalism required him to read several online postings about the issue inside the education industry.

One warns that "teachers and administrators must be held accountable for practices deemed to be racist, sexist, heterosexist, classist, or in any other way discriminatory." And a second warned that educators must not define education as the basic skills.

But spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe at the Texas Education Agency said the state rules require teacher preparation programs to cover 17 curriculum topics, but not multiculturalism.

"While we establish the broad rules that are to be followed, we do not write or approve a training program's curriculum," she said.

She said the articles, if part of the program, were chosen at the region level.

One of the articles was on the EdChange Multicultural Pavilion and discussed defining "multicultural education."

There it states that there are several focuses for such programs, including those that insist "on education change as part of a larger societal transformation in which we more closely explore and criticize the oppressive foundations of society and how education serves to maintain the status quo – foundations such as white supremacy, capitalism, global socioeconomic situations, and exploitation."

The traditional teaching approaches, it continued, "must be deconstructed to examine how they are contributing to and supporting institutional systems of oppression."

A similar issue of demanding a specific social perspective arose recently at the University of Minnesota.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Hallelujah, Obama Almighty! Media Proclaim

. . . we have Jesus’ miracles that everyone still remembers, but which only benefitted a few. . . . it is impossible to give an unequivocal result of his work.

-- From "Danish Paper: Obama is Greater than Jesus" by Charles Smith, Examiner 12/30/09

Danish newspaper Politiken is running a print story that seems right ‘for such a time as this.’ The editorial opines that the first black American president is so socially connected and able to empathize with all peoples, that he is desirably deific by nature - in not so few words - magnifying his holiness as “greater than Jesus.”

The writer is so convinced that the preeminent presidential pontiff is “the practical Saviour of our times,” his opinion piece showers the honorable Barack Hussein Obama with amorous affection and attributes that are quite literally - of Biblical proportion.

Proclaiming Obama’s proclivity for peace, in awe of his ornamental oratorical ability and wisdom, touting his humble beginnings and defense of the weak and vulnerable because of his ability to identify with them, the author could possibly be preparing his own gospel of the Obama (ante)Christ.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "'Obama is, of course, greater than Jesus'" by Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 12/29/09

"Obama is, of course, greater than Jesus – if we have to play that absurd Christmas game," opined the unsigned editorial yesterday in Politiken, which boasts of being Denmark's largest newspaper, in publication since 1884.

"He comes from humble beginnings and defends the weak and vulnerable, because he can identify himself with their conditions," the newspaper said. "And no we are not thinking of Jesus Christ, whose birthday has just been celebrated – but rather the President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama."

The editorial noted that "the idea was naturally that the comparison between Jesus and Obama" would be made. "If such a comparison were to be made, it would, of course, inevitably be to Obama's advantage."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Environmentalist 'Christians' Say Man Controls Nature, Not God

The liberal National Council of Churches says about 100 religious representatives from the United States will attend the climate summit in Copenhagen this week to 'witness' to the necessity for mankind to change the climate trends of the earth (as designed by God) because Al Gore has convinced them.

UPDATE 12/10/09: Climate: The new god of left-wing Christianity

-- From "Religious groups active in climate debate" by Brian Winter, USA Today 12/7/09

. . . religious leaders in Copenhagen will include Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and spiritual head of the Church of England and the worldwide Anglican Communion; Richard Cizik, a former vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals; Jim Ball, head of the Evangelical Environmental Network; South African cleric and Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu; and representatives from the National Council of Churches (NCC), which encompasses more than 100,000 Protestant, Anglican, Orthodox, Evangelical and other congregations with 45 million members across the USA.

There is a wide range of views among — and within — different faiths as to the fundamental questions in the environmental debate: to what extent climate change is occurring, whether human activity is responsible for it, and what, if anything, should be done as a result.

Some are actively pushing against Copenhagen's agenda.

E. Calvin Breisner, a founder of the Cornwall Alliance, a coalition of clergy, scientists and academics, says recent data show the human role in causing global warming is minimal or non-existent. Religious figures who say otherwise, without a full background in science and economics, "risk an abuse of their moral authority," Breisner says.

If anyone can help move the debate, it's faith-based leaders, says Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.

"This is a very religious country. God the Creator still does better in polls than any politician," says Lieberman, who backs legislation to mandate lower carbon emissions. He says he first began to embrace the environmental cause 20 years ago because of his own spiritual beliefs.

Ball's pet cause is a proposal for rich countries, including the USA, to send poorer countries money — at least $10 billion a year will be needed, the U.N.'s Ban says. The funds would help the countries overhaul their economies to pollute less, and cope with possible consequences of climate change such as lower agricultural yields, or rising seas that could devastate island nations.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Study: Liberal 'Christians' and Conservative Christians Differ in Politics (Dah!)

Study finds faithful can't agree on Bible, government's role, social responsibility

Christians who are engaged in witnessing to the lost American culture are well aware of these study findings, but the vast majority of Americans are being manipulated by anti-christian forces, and so such a study could enlighten Americans.

-- From "Why can't Christians unite to change America's ways?" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 9/27/09

According to a new study, the answer is that [self-identified] Christians don't share a common worldview, their morals and values sprayed across the spectrum by differing views in a handful of key areas.

The 2009 Religious Activists Surveys (click to download .PDF) – conducted by Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron in partnership with Public Religion Research – focused on religious activists working on both "conservative" and "progressive" causes, and found that while the majority of both types called themselves Christian, they are driven apart by disagreements over social responsibility, biblical authority and the role of government.

The statistics reflect that Christians who differ in defining these key areas also differ in political and moral convictions.

In the past, said E.J. Dionne, one of the speakers chosen to announce the study, "Social and theological differences between denominations and faith traditions mattered a great deal. Those old divisions have largely passed away. Now conservative Catholics, Protestants and Jews tend to ally together against more liberal Catholics, Protestants and Jews."

The study data included a combined 3,000 survey responses from political activists associated both with the religious left – working for organizations like the Interfaith Alliance and Sojourners – and the religious right – from groups like Concerned Women for America and the National Right to Life Committee.

55 percent of the conservative activists identified themselves as Evangelical Protestants, while only 10 percent of the progressives claimed the same label.

Conversely, among the progressives, 44 percent called themselves mainline Protestant, while only 9 percent of conservatives identified themselves as such.

Roman Catholics were more evenly split, composing 35 percent of conservative activists and 17 percent of progressives.

. . . when asked about the most important issues among a set of eight choices, conservative activists pegged as priorities abortion (83 percent) and same-sex marriage (65 percent). Fewer than 10 percent of their progressive counterparts, however, identified those issues as "most important," choosing instead to focus on poverty (74 percent), health care (67 percent) and the environment (56 percent).

. . . 95 percent of the conservative religious activists responded that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, while 80 percent of the progressives answered that abortion should be legal in most or all cases.

Similarly, only 13 percent of conservative activists supported additional environmental protection at the cost of raised prices or lost jobs, while 87 percent of progressive activists would rather suffer the price in exchange for increased environmental protections.

The disparity between the two groups was also reflected on the issues of same-sex marriage (82 percent of conservatives opposed, 59 percent of progressives in favor), government health care, the Iraq war, the use of extreme interrogation techniques and so on.

And despite being divided in their voting patterns (93 percent of progressives voted for Obama in 2008, while 90 percent of conservatives report voting for McCain), the majority of both groups affirmed that faith was "an important factor" in their voting decision.

Among conservative activists, 48 percent stated they believe the Bible to be the "literal Word of God" and another 36 percent accepted the same label without the word "literal" – a total of 84 percent affirming the Good Book as the Word of God.

Among progressives, however, only 22 percent of respondents combined to call the Bible the "Word of God." Instead, 36 percent answered that the Bible merely "contains" the Word of God, and 21 percent called the Bible simply "one important source of wisdom."

Among conservative religious activists, 92 percent agreed the main cause of America's problems is moral decay, while only about 1-in-4 progressives agreed and nearly half disagreed.

Instead, 47 percent of progressives look to poverty and discrimination as the primary causes of America's troubles, while only 4 percent of conservatives agree.

When presented with the idea, "If enough people were brought to Christ, social ills would take care of themselves," 67 percent of the conservative activists agreed, and 15 percent disagreed. Among progressives, only 13 percent agreed, while 61 percent disagreed.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Billionaire Liberal Elites Want Fewer Non-elites Born

As the birth rates decline in Europe, and among the wealthiest population groups, America's richest people met secretly to plan world population control. Why all the secrecy? “They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government.”

UPDATE 8/19/12: Bill & Melinda Gates mark 100th year since the First International Eugenics Congress in London with U.N. “family planning” summit

-- From "Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation" by John Harlow from Los Angeles for The Sunday [London] Times 5/24/09

The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.

Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.

They gathered at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist and president of the private Rockefeller University, in Manhattan on May 5. The informal afternoon session was so discreet that some of the billionaires’ aides were told they were at “security briefings”.

Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority.

“Official projections say the world’s population will peak at 9.3 billion [up from 6.6 billion today] but with charitable initiatives, such as better reproductive healthcare, we think we can cap that at 8.3 billion,” Gates said [in February].

This could result in a challenge to some Third World politicians who believe contraception and female education weaken traditional values.

Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, said the summit was unprecedented. “We only learnt about it afterwards, by accident. Normally these people are happy to talk good causes, but this is different – maybe because they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal,” he said.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

"Sustainability": the New PC Code Word

First "social justice," then "disposition training," now "sustainability" is academia's new code word of forced ideology

From "The Worst Campus Code Word" by John Leo, posted 4/29/08 at Minding the Campus

The academic left is fond of buzzwords that sound harmless but function in a highly ideological way. Many schools of education and social work require students to have a good "disposition." In practice this means that conservatives need not apply, as highly publicized attempts to penalize right-wing students at Brooklyn College and Washington State University revealed. "Social justice" is an even more useful codeword. Who can oppose it? But some schools made the mistake of spelling out that it means advocacy for causes of the left, including support for gay marriage and adoption, also opposition to "institutional racism," heterosexism, classism and ableism. Students at Teachers College, Columbia, are required to acknowledge that belief in "merit, social mobility and individual responsibility" often produce and perpetuate social inequalities. Even in its mildest form "social justice" puts schools in a position of judging the acceptability of students' political and social opinions.

Now the left is organizing around its most powerful codeword yet: sustainability. Dozens of universities now have sustainability programs. Arizona State is bulking up its curriculum and seems to be emerging as the strongest sustainability campus. UCLA has a housing floor devoted to sustainability. The American College Personnel Association (ACPA) has a sustainability task force and has joined eight other education associations to form a sustainability consortium. Pushed by the cultural left, UNESCO has declared the United National Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 2005-2014, featuring the now ubiquitous symbol of the sustainability movement - three overlapping circles representing environmental, economic and social reform (i.e., ecology is only a third of what the movement is about).

Only recently have the goals and institutionalization of the movement become clear. The Association for the Advancement of Sustainability is Higher Education (AASHE) says it "defines sustainability is an inclusive way, encompassing human and ecological health, social justice, secure livelihoods and a better world for all generations." When the residential life program at the University of Delaware - possibly the most appalling indoctrination program ever to appear on an American campus - was presented, Res Life director Kathleen Kerr packaged it as a sustainability program. Since suspended, possibly only temporarily, the program discussed mandatory sessions for students as "treatments" and insisted that whites acknowledge their role as racists. It also required students to achieve certain competencies including "students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society." At a conference, Kerr explained "the social justice aspects of sustainability education," referring to "environmental racism," "domestic partnerships" and "gender equity."

Read the rest of the article here.