Alumni Coffee House Chatter

There's been a lot of discussion these last two days in the Alumni Coffee House. Several alums feel that Peter Kerr's account is very subjective and that others like me have shown a hateful and, even one person suggested, sinful attitude. I don't perceive my emotions as hateful, although you'll see I have been rather blunt and at times, angry.

I thought I might put here just some of what I've posted since Dan Johnson's post below.
____________________
"By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if when the Executive Committee brings their agenda to the broader board this time expecting it simply to rubber stamp what they've already "decided" for them (I hear the board has been run this way for years), they may just find that this group of individuals has some questions for them. Some individuals seem confident they know what the board will decide regarding Greenway... but if so, it is surprising that they weren't able to stop Greenway from becoming president in the first place."

__________________
Then I posted this in response to someone else's questions:

"Is Andringa part of the ATS board?
No, he is the former chair of the CCCU (Coalition of Christian Colleges and Universities, the organization into which Steve Moore worked to get Asbury included), apparently now working primarily as a consultant. He's had an illustrious career and is highly respected, I believe.

If so, why was he hired as a consultant?
I don't know if Peter Kerr's original claim (version 1) that the consultant had not thought Greenway the best candidate has been confirmed or not, but it seems little secret that Dr. Smith has resisted Greenway as president since before the board decided on him. I have a hunch that Smith has continued to work with this consultant because they share a common perspective on what is best for the seminary. There's nothing wrong with that (unless of course if at some point someone let the end justify inappropriate means, and I cannot judge that).

If not, why would he communicate with Peter Kerr [a faculty member of Asbury College] directly at all, let alone write a letter of censure to him and his supervisors?
This seems a fair enough question. I know Dan Johnson contacted me and we had a friendly talk on the phone after I posted some questions here. He seems like a nice enough guy and I thought better of him for doing it. I am less clear that it is appropriate for a consultant to contact someone, unless of course they felt their reputation might be at stake. Then perhaps it would be appropriate."

_________________________
Then I posted this, adding on to something said by my old theology prof, Larry Wood:

"Larry: If there is information that anyone on the Board of Trustees has that cannot publicly be distributed, I respectfully request that this be shared with our faculty leaders in confidence (our provost and deans), and if my provost or my dean confirms this confidential information I am sure this faculty would immediately support the call for the President's resignation.

Me: As I think all the alumni would. But a phrase from a different context comes to mind here: "Weapons of Mass Destruction." We await any real evidence (and more importantly, I suspect the broader board outside the EXCO is awaiting) of WMD.

Don't ask us to trust you... we want to... but don't ask us. The potential consequences and implications in this case demand a healthy suspicion, not blind faith."
_____________________

Then this in response to some questioning Peter Kerr's motives:

"While there were clearly subjective elements in Peter's initial post, I thought the broad outline of the second one had little such, even if we should find that a few details can be questioned (you will not find that I am easily distracted from the big picture by questioning immaterial details like by-law references).

And do not paint me in some pro-Greenway category. I am pro-truth wherever it will lead in this situation. If I appear pro-Greenway it is because, given the evidence with which I have been presented (and not data restricted to internal avenues), the balance of evidence pushes me in Greenway's favor. If someone will produce real evidence of WMD, I will be glad to repent in dust and ashes.

I remain open to being convinced otherwise, but will become a more and more dogged gadfly the more I smell a rat."
_____________________

I posted this from a comment here, but later unsent it because I ultimately don't know whether it came from someone with knowledge or not. A former student of mine thought it served no purpose but to inflame, so I removed it. Of course everyone had read it and several had responded to it by the time I took it off.

"Someone posted this on a domain of mine:

'Contrary to the hopes and wishes of many seminary alumni, Dr. Greenway will not be returning to his post. This fact is all but certain. Furthermore, an interim has already been selected and will be introduced to the Asbury community in the very near future. Know this: those associated with the seminary will not be disappointed.'

I wonder if anyone on the broader board outside the EXCO has heard this wonderful news? Hmmm. I think I'll forward to them so that they can know how they're supposed to vote in October.
_______________________
Then this:

Vaughn W. Thurston-Cox writes: But as far as I can tell the board is making this nearly impossible. They are handing out information that is helpful for them.

Me: And by "board" here we mean primarily Jim Smith and then perhaps key members of the EXCO. My impression is that there is little communication going on right now between this power core and the broader members of the board. I suspect they have little more information than Dan Johnson has posted here. As far as I know (and I'll admit I don't know for sure), the broader board has not seen any WMD.

I personally believe that to preserve their honor when this is all over, several of these board individuals should either resign or return to the broader board. Otherwise the suspicion of wrongdoing will linger, whether it be true or not. The foul taste in all of our mouths will remain unless Jim Smith and several others reliquish their positions of power when this is all over and at least return to the broader board. Certainly it is very unwise (I'll tone down my emotions) for a chairman with one president to continue to serve as chair with another one. This is almost policy at all Wesleyan institutions of higher learning and it is very wise.

At least that's what I believe Christ would do."
____________________

Then I posted Keith's recommendation on the previous post as "Elder Statesman Advice from Keith Drury." Some thought it was not hopeful enough, that it represented the best human option, a "lose-lose."
____________________

Lastly I posted this tonight:

"I know some think I have spewed hatred in the posts I've made, but I am actually very sad, almost depressed by this whole thing and where I fear it is heading. It's no secret that Indiana Wesleyan University has long discussed the possibility of a founding a seminary. The Wesleyans do not have their own seminary, but many of our leaders have opposed founding one for a long time because they doubted we could form one as good as Asbury. And while I think it makes sense for us to have a seminary of our own, I've never worried too much about needing one--until now.

Maybe everything else was wrong with Greenway, for all I know, but he was successful in at least one area: he reconnected with our university--the single largest feeder college of ATS--and with our denomination. He was actually scheduled to come speak at IWU at about the time the board will be meeting to determine his fate. I don't know of any Asbury seminary president who's ever done that.

Maybe I'm absurdly fretting over nothing. But knowing how ticked some key Wesleyans are about the way this has come down and myself fearing that we will have neither a miracle of reconciliation nor an even handed Drury option, I have been wondering if our church will be left without any clear option for a seminary after this is over. These are the thoughts that are depressing me tonight."
____________
So I end with the same feeling I've expressed before. The sides are well staked out, the options clear. So why isn't the board rushing to town to solve this thing? Why are they waiting to send the fire trucks when Asbury is burning?

So now 10 days since this whole crisis could have been resolved if Smith had convened the board as soon as possible.