Jumpin' Jim Smith, Dirty Dan in the "Not OK" Corral

This is a response to an anonymously pro-core EC comment on my previous post (I should point out that the actual EC is a 14 member board and that this situation started with a core of 4). As a disclaimer, I don't necessarily think "Dan" is dirty. He seemed like a nice guy on the phone. I have said throughout that I do not even know whether Greenway is a good president or not. Clearly this core of the EC thinks he is "not OK," and the broader EC voted 12-2 to put him on leave.

My goal here is to flush out the truth in a war of power. To force as much as I can the open discussion of facts, events, and interpretations. As someone who is at the point where he can take or leave his association with Asbury, I am in a unique position to arbitrate these issues. My real goal is thus not to malign Jim Smith, Dan Johnson, or the other 2 alleged anti-Green individuals, whom I have always given the benefit of the doubt in terms of working for what they think is the good of the seminary.

My goal is to use the power of the internet to bring a balance of power, to give voice and rhetoric to those disempowered in the nitty gritty world of Asbury politics. Currently the 4 in the "Not OK Corral" seem to hold all the political cards that really matter. Only donors and constituencies hold substantial counter-cards to which they are accountable.

The goal is truth. I will eat my words with pleasure if it proves that I have not been aiding the truth.

My response to the anonymous comment:
____________________________
Thanks for posting the other side, anonymous pro EC. I wholeheartedly welcome them because I am interested in the truth, not in a pre-favored side. If I have misled, I sincerely want to eat my words in the name of truth. By all means, everyone post no matter your side!!!

I read Lawson's posts and have in fact mentioned him a few times here. I think it is clear that Lawson is one of the minority of professors who tend to side with the "Not OK 4." Or at least he is trying to bring balance to the picture. We remember that 16% of the faculty did not support the immediate reinstatement of Greenway and we can imagine that Lawson was one of them.

Lawson is a great guy. He taught me Hebrew and taught one of the most memorable classes I had at ATS (Dave Smith was in it too!). It was a read through Isaiah 1-12 in Hebrew. It was excruciatingly hard and delightful at the same time, a kind of early foray of mine into intellectual sado-masochism.

Yet Lawson's personality is not one to be involved in administration central. He is a genius who I suspect would just as well be playing his guitar at a night club as engaging in school politics. He is awesome. I wonder if his posts are in part defending his friends (including Jim Smith, the Chair).

But, his place in the food chain puts him in a much less informed position than other high administratively connected faculty who have found Peter Kerr's sequence of events to be generally accurate. Lawson actually does not question the "event" accuracy so much as the interpretation.

So as I commented to a fellow faculty member here at IWU about the basic claim that the EC had it in for Greenway (rightly or wrongly) well before his failure to return, "I just can't see any other conclusion... if I'm wrong then logic isn't real and the entire universe will explode." The fellow prof agreed with my logic, but stopped short of universe explosions.

But I can tell you this about little ol' Schenck Thoughts. There's no way I would teach at Asbury with the current EC core. I had a delightful email conversation with Lawson the other evening in which I wrote him that I could see in this crisis the end of my association with Asbury. I will continue to recommend the faculty of Asbury as top notch, but I wouldn't recommend anyone to teach there, if the current EC remains in charge.

I am a significant representative of the Wesleyan Church in relation to Asbury. I do not know what our two representatives to the board will vote and I have not contacted them. But I do not know a single IWU professor or Wesleyan anywhere with a positive view of the EC core right now. And I know people (so you can imagine the Alumni Coffee House is far from the only place I am hearing things).

That is something the broader board should consider. We might seem insignificant to those whose main goal for Asbury is to use it to reform the UM church. But in the real world, IWU is the largest single feeder of students to Asbury (not just Wesleyan, but we have a sizeable UM clientele), and the Wesleyan Church is a major student contributor on the whole.

Beyond that I heard that a local UM pastor here told a freshman UM student here that he might not necessarily think of Asbury, because it's UM accreditation might be in question. Asbury already has a bad reputation among so many UMers. This crisis is just adding fuel to the fire. And I've had online students this semester question whether their degree will be worth anything. Of course I think these are not realities either. The board will settle this in October and life will go on one way or another. But you can see the effect this crisis is having.

So Greenway may go, but here's a warning to the broader board from its constituencies, among which lil' ol' Schenck Thoughts must be considered a major representative. Maybe Greenway needs to go. But if so--if there is no reconciliation by them or some yet to appear elder statesman/woman--then you'd better boot Jumpin' Jim Smith and Dirty Dan Johnson as well just to hit the reset button and clean our mouths from this bad taste. Otherwise the stench of this crisis will linger and you just might lose a hefty part of your constituency.

Who is the Board of Trustees responsible to? Us, the alumni and feeder schools. That makes people like me Jim Smith's boss.

Jim Smith, Dan Johnson, Jim Smith, Dan Johnson, Jim Smith, Dan Johnson... The other two (names, please, anyone?).

What are you doing, Ken? People target the names they know. Everyone knows Greenway's name, so he's the easy target regardless. They should equally know these names so that any pruning is done on the basis of facts, not on the basis of what names are known by the public. [Ask Lawson which of the three Abraham/Isaac, Sarah/Rebecca, Pharaoh/Abimelech stories, from a form critical perspective, is most likely to be historically "true." The answer is the least famous set of names--Isaac/Rebekah/Abimelech. :-) Traditions gravitate toward the better known names.]

I still believe that Jim Smith and the other 3 on the EC in the "Not OK" Corral think they are doing the seminary a service. I had a very friendly conversation with Dr. Johnson and no doubt would enjoy his friendship under different circumstances. If I didn't think it was important for someone to work for a fair process and for the interests of those I represent I wouldn't try to hammer them. In fact, I don't think I have hammered them too much thus far.

But let's get their names out in the open so that they also are part of the mix, out where everyone can fairly evaluate their actions. Who knows, maybe they will be partially vindicated? Maybe the universe will explode as they are completely vindicated? But their names should be on the line with Greenway's.

May the Holy Spirit give discernment to any who would read this post! I want the truth. As far as I know, I am not hateful in spirit toward these individuals. My conscience is clear. But I don't think the truth will out unless someone stirs the pot. This post is my attempt to do some stirring!

Come out and testify to opposing council, ye who lurk here!