The Truth about United Methodist Seminaries

This article is contributed by Matt Jameson, a concerned United Methodist layman from Missouri. 

As congregations face a rapidly narrowing window to decide whether or not to stick with the United Methodist Church, they should consider the truth about United Methodist seminaries.

While I focus here on American seminaries, these seminaries have global influence. Some United Methodist elites from elsewhere come to America for theological education.

First, this is a question of stewardship. This year alone, $26.9 million is demanded of American United Methodist congregations for the Ministerial Education Fund (MEF), which primarily goes to propping up the 13 official United Methodist seminaries in the United States. For your congregation to “stay UMC” means requiring it to continually pay into the MEF, every year.

While the UMC Discipline (¶ 816.2a) requires the majority of the MEF to be used for “United Methodist student scholarships” and/or compensation for faculty and staff “who prepare United Methodist students … for ordained ministry or service as local pastors” at (only) these 13 schools, this is not too restrictive. Scholarships cover tuition, which supports a seminary as a whole. Some faculty and staff who prepare United Methodists also prepare others. And funding one part of a budget frees up funds for other matters.

Second, United Methodist seminaries directly impact the spiritual health of United Methodist congregations. If you choose to stay UMC, at some point, you are likely to get as your new pastor a graduate of one of “the official 13.” Pastors’ years spent in seminary can be very personally formative. So any congregation considering “staying UMC” should note the spiritual environments molding United Methodism’s new pastors.

Third, there are questions about moral complicity. Choosing to permanently chain your congregation to the UMC is a major, long-term financial commitment. This means sharing moral responsibility for such activities as those documented below.

As has been noted, United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio is an extreme outlier among American United Methodist seminaries. While United’s president has said that the school will remain United Methodist, it remains to be seen if an increasingly liberal post-separation United Methodist Church will eventually force United to abandon either the denomination or its theologically orthodox current identity.

What about the other 12?

Radicalism and Other Religions

Some church folk have understood that there is theological and political radicalism in United Methodist seminaries. There are relatively higher-profile instances of their events and professors offering “Goddess” talk and celebration of pre-marital sex, boldly denying of the authority of Scripture, or challenging traditional Christian understandings of everything from eternity to the virgin birth to God’s transcendence. It is not the biggest secret that United Methodist seminaries can foster cultures of left-wing echo-chamber politics, even sometimes to such extremes as “defund the police” and 9/11 conspiracy mongering.

But most United Methodists are probably not informed of the extent of how far the radicalism in United Methodist seminaries has gone. Yes, there are limited examples of theologically orthodox individual professors at some seminaries. But we can no longer afford to ignore these wider trends.

With this article, you can check the hyperlinks to see the documentation for yourself.

UPDATE: After this article was published, the Rev. Dr. Miguel De La Torre, a prominent professor at the UMC’s Iliff School of Theology, marked Holy Week of 2023 by publishing an editorial trashing traditional Christian doctrine about Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross and disdaining hymns with such lyrics as affirming that “there’s power in the blood” of Jesus. According to this apportionment-salaried trainer of new United Methodist clergy, “crucifixion is not salvific” and “Jesus’ death neither pays a ransom nor is a substitution for us.”

As documented in great detail, nine American United Methodist seminaries are openly friendly to the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA), to differing degrees, even sometimes to the point of devoting entire courses and programs with the sole purpose of training Unitarian Universalist (UU) ministers. As IRD’s Collin Bastian explains, “Unitarian Universalism is essentially a post-Christian religion, with historical roots in denying the divinity of Jesus Christ and believing in the universal salvation of all people, and which today is best known for its relativistic attitude of viewing all religions as equally valid.”

It is one thing for a seminary to include faithful Christians of other denominations (all serving the same Lord) or promote good relations with non-Christians.

But United Methodist seminaries’ embracing Unitarian Universalism is different. When these stewards of apportionment funds openly promote the influence of UU spiritual leaders, treat the UUA as just another equally valid denominational option, and/or help supply the UUA with non-Christian ministers, this goes far beyond interfaith respect. This does not spread the Gospel. Instead, these United Methodist seminaries are knowingly supporting the maintenance and spread of an alternative to Christianity.

Many United Methodists trained at these schools may internalize this ethos of treating Unitarian Universalism (or at Iliff School of Theology in Denver, neo-paganism or atheism/humanism), as at least as valid a worldview as any other. Or they may view such issues as the divinity of Jesus Christ or His teachings about the reality of Hell as “non-essential” or less important than areas of common ground with Unitarian Universalists, like left-wing social-justice causes. After being molded in such a spiritual climate, they will carry this perspective to the United Methodist pulpits to which they are appointed.

More conservative and moderate United Methodists are horrified by such stories as the UMC’s Boston University School of Theology hiring a liberal pastor, known to have preached an Easter Sunday sermon denying the physical resurrection of Christ, to teach a class required for all United Methodist ordination candidates. But is this really so far a bridge from this same seminary taking an effectively relativistic view towards the allegedly non-essential issue of the divinity of Jesus?

These concerns also apply to those United Methodist seminaries that promote other religions in addition to Unitarian Universalism.

The apportionment-funded Claremont School of Theology has long offered programming explicitly designed to train Muslim imams to lead and promote the Islamic religion in North America. When this began, Claremont’s president at the time actually declared that Christians who wish to evangelize adherents of non-Christian religions have “an incorrect perception of what it means to follow Jesus.”

After its “incubation” within Claremont, the Islamic seminary, Bayan Claremont, eventually became “a free-standing institution.” But to this day, Claremont still offers its own degree program in “Islamic Chaplaincy.”

I documented earlier how the UMC’s Iliff not only offers intentional programming to train UU ministers, but is openly friendly towards atheism and neo-paganism. I realize it may sound hard to believe that a seminary, generously funded by apportionments from United Methodist offering plates:

• Is a community of “Hindus, Universalists, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics,” among others;
• Offers courses that explore such topics as “Queer tarot” and social justice “through the lenses of various modern, Western earth honoring traditions” like “goddess spirituality/Wicca” and “polytheism/animism”;
• Has had openly neo-pagan staffers, including one current staffer “ordained with a Norse pagan organization” who “serves as their Gudellri/head clergy”;
• Honors a transgendered Wiccan as a model student leader;
• Brags about an atheistic chaplain as one of its alumni of which this United Methodist seminary is especially proud; and
• Identifies “core values” that include LGBTQIA+ ideology while saying nothing directly about Jesus Christ.

But this is all well documented.

It was at this same Iliff where Professor Tink Tinker engaged in a bizarre ritual of seeking to address a corpse’s defilement by being “able to speak with the man” who was murdered and “ask his permission” for certain things, disregarding clear biblical warnings against pagan practices of consulting the dead!

In addition to the nine openly UU-friendly United Methodist seminaries, a tenth institution is Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary in suburban Chicago. Since 2015, it has offered an entire program apparently dedicated to training students in LGBTQ liberationist ideology.

Garrett’s radicalism did not begin then. From 2006 through 2014, its president was the Rev. Dr. Philip Amerson (previously president of Claremont). Recently on social media, Amerson went out of his way to “troll” IRD’s UMAction Director John Lomperis. Amerson was specifically outraged by Lomperis’s criticizing United Methodist bishops Joseph Sprague and Karen Oliveto respectively denying Jesus Christ’s sinlessness and physical resurrection. According to this long-time leader in training United Methodist clergy, protesting these bishops teaching a low view of Jesus was “[s]uch mean-spirited, bad form,” akin to trivial fights over “buttons or zippers?,” since “Joe and Karen are graceful folks and exceptional pastors.” After someone else stressed the importance of bishops believing traditional doctrine about Jesus Christ’s virgin birth, divinity, death, and resurrection, Amerson dismissively insisted, “Bishop Sprague is a follower of Jesus, the Christ. Just doesn’t fit in your 1920s fundamentalist categories.” (UPDATE: After this article was published, Amerson apparently deleted these quoted tweets. But readers can still confirm the record of what he publicly wrote in screen shots of the Twitter thread here, here, and here.)

An eleventh school, Gammon Theological Seminary in Atlanta, is not a stand-alone seminary.      It pools resources with several other historically black seminaries to jointly form the Interdenominational Theological Center (ITC), as a self-described “unique model.” Admissions, accreditation, and faculty listings are apparently all arranged through the ITC.

Shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision allowing states to restrict or outlaw abortion, the ITC rushed to promote an online event hosted by one of its faculty members, called “You Won’t Break My Soul: A Womanist Response to Roe v. Wade Being Overturned.” In one social-media post, the presenter denounced the ruling as “a devastating blow” and advertised her ITC-promoted event as explaining how people “can organize at this moment to reclaim reproductive justice as the law of the land.”  Later, she touted the same ITC-promoted event as a venue “to discuss how we can mobilize against the overturning of Roe.”

ITC’s website also features a pro-choice editorial by its president. This role model for future pastors shows striking indifference towards unborn human life, admitting that in meetings with “numerous young women and couples” considering abortion, he has “never” discouraged any abortion. (The recent longtime dean of the UMC’s Perkins School of Theology has promoted a similar disregard for unborn human life.)

A twelfth seminary, Duke Divinity School, has historically been known as more moderate.

But Duke certainly has its left edge. Last year, a self-described “non-binary transqueer Latinx” Duke Divinity consulting professor denounced “whiteness” and capitalism. This year, a student group there organized a bizarre LGBTQ-pride-themed worship service, featuring prayer to “the Great Queer One,” calling God “drag queen, and transman, and gender-fluid,” and attempting to connect Jacob in Genesis to transgenderism.

Prioritizing LGBTQ Activism

All 13 American United Methodist seminaries responded to the UMC’s 2019 General Conference re-affirming and strengthening enforcement for the denomination’s traditionalist sexual-morality standards, instead of adopting one of several alternative plans to liberalize.

None supported General Conference’s decision.

Duke and United each expressed tactful neutrality and respect for diverse perspectives.

Gammon tweeted a video of LGBTQ activists protesting at the General Conference, and separately retweeted one liberal leaders’ denunciation of the adopted Traditional Plan, which likened disapproval of gay weddings to racism.

St. Paul School of Theology briefly contrasted the General Conference’s decision with its own longstanding “commitment of non-discrimination towards LGBTQ persons.”

Various degrees of criticism were issued by the heads of all nine remaining seminaries: Boston University School of Theology, Claremont, Drew Theological School, Garrett, Iliff, Candler School of Theology at Emory University, The Methodist Theological School in Ohio (MTSO), Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University, and Wesley Theological Seminary.

Candler’s dean even bragged, “For more than a decade, Candler’s Methodist Studies Program … has operated a placement service for UMC LGBTQIA+ persons whose home annual conferences will not ordain them,” helping them find “conferences that will ordain them” (i.e., apparently helping future ministers find places where they can get away with violating the UMC’s moral standards).

Pastors trained at such seminaries are increasingly unlikely to hold a traditionalist position on marriage and sex.

Future Trajectory

For all of their remarkable victories in recent years, one area where conservatives’ General Conference efforts have largely gone nowhere has been trying to establish firm restraints on seminary radicalism.

The 2016 General Conference was the high-water mark of conservative voting strength. But even that conference saw virtually no traction for a petition to redirect Ministerial Education Funds away from seminaries who “offer any course work, degree program, or formal certificate explicitly designed for training” people to lead and spread non-Christian religions. This proposal was defeated overwhelmingly in committee, getting only 21 percent support, despite conservative caucuses strongly promoting it beforehand.

Now with the UMC split, such reforms will lose their strongest proponents. And with fewer conservative United Methodists left to appease, these seminaries may now feel increased pressures to become even more liberal.

In recent years, consistently clear majorities of newly ordained American United Methodist ministers have attended one of the 13 official United Methodist seminaries (see pages 55-56). There are significant financial incentives and soft pressures for United Methodist ministry candidates to do so. And the courses of study for licensed local pastors are even more tightly connected to these official schools.

Yes, a significant minority of our clergy have gone to one of the non-UMC seminaries approved for United Methodist ordination candidates.

But for more than two decades, UMC authorities have increasingly restricted the number of approved non-UMC seminaries. At one point, Bishop Will Willimon, then a University Senate member, explained such actions as an “encouragement for United Methodist students to go to United Methodist schools that need students,” since many United Methodist seminaries “are really struggling.” As the denomination’s U.S. membership collapses, this will challenge United Methodist seminaries, in turn pressuring self-protective denominational bureaucrats to continue closing off other seminary options.

Furthermore, one key “centrist” leader has already declared his stance of wanting to block any graduates of independent, evangelical Asbury Theological Seminary, long a main source of traditionalist United Methodist pastors, from ordination in the post-separation UMC.

Thus, we can expect dwindling numbers of new traditionalist pastors to be available to shepherd any traditionalist congregations remaining in the UMC.

If you want your future pastors to be more theologically orthodox than the values documented here, and do not want to force your congregation to perpetually fund these liberal United Methodist seminaries, then you can expect to find yourself increasingly not fitting in with the future United Methodist Church.