Peter Kerr and the Consultant

Dear Friends and Alumni: (From Larry Wood)

Silence is a virtue in certain situations, but it can be wrong when a community such as ours needs to see the larger picture of an issue that concerns us as we try to do the work of God. So if silence can be a virtue, so can speaking out for what is right be a virtue as well.

It is in the interest of fairness and justice that I think it would be constructive and helpful for us to be aware of a letter from [the consultant] (the consultant that was part of the task force appointed by the executive committee to give President Greenway his evaluation) that was sent to professor Kerr's supervisors in an attempt to silence him. Below this letter I am also including a reply by professor Kerr that was sent to me because I am mentioned in it.

I requested professor Kerr's permission to post this as I wish to keep false rumors from flying around among our alumni about what is being said and for the purpose of providing information that is open and transparent so that all sides are being represented in this matter. As you can see from the comments by professor Kerr, there is no disrespect for anyone being shown and there is full respect for the governance responsibility of the Board of Trustees. Whatever decisions are made regarding this matter is to be rightly determined by the BOT. He respects that. And so do I. I will never speak against the final decisions of our Board, which is made up of faithful and good men and women who give sacrificially of themselves as they provide for the governance of Asbury. But I do hope that this open flow of information will help us all to see the larger picture. Hopefully the Board will also see the larger picture from the perspective of faculty, students, and alumni. And I hope that they will consider the policy of "shared governance" with the faculty. There is no hidden agenda here at all, but there is a call for due process so that regardless of the outcome healing can emerge.

Professor Kerr was responsible for all media relations in the DC area during the State Funeral of former President Ronald Reagan, and has had significant experience in these kinds of matters with his work at the Pentagon. We are indebted to him for his efforts to keep us properly informed on this important issue.

Finally, let me say that there has been no organized movement directed against the Task Force that I am aware of other than the faculty action which overwhelmingly voted to request the Executive Committee of the Board reinstate President Greenway's responsibilities. When students have asked me what to do, they can tell you that I've only told them to pray about it. Some students have suggested demonstrations, etc., but I personally have spoken against that. I believe prayer and the proper flow of information are the appropriate options. We await the results of the meeting of the BOT on Oct 17 in Atlanta, GA, at the airport. What they decide stands.

One final comment. If there is information that anyone on the BOT 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. Until then, we wait....

Below are the two letters FYI:

-------------------- Original From Dr. A, the consultant for the Task Force---------------------
FYI, one of the CCCU member presidents just forwarded the two
documents sent to him and, so I'm told, to all CCCU campus presidents
(130+ American CCCU campuses. Asbury Seminary has been an affiliate
CCCU campus along with other seminaries).

I'm grateful that Dan Johnson's memo was one of the two documents,
underlining the importance of the board speaking directly to the
campus. The Peter Kerr article was his first version. He since put
out a "version 1.1" that modified some of his claims. Following that
version, Peter and I had a long phone conversation "on background"
where I gave him information that, if he were truly seeking the truth
as he says, would require him to publish version 2.0. For about a
week now, Dan Johnson (board vice chair) has had an offer to Peter
also to visit him by phone. Peter acknowledged Dan's offer.
Unfortunately, Dan leaves in the morning for a week or so out of the
country and he has yet to hear from Peter.

Although the College is a separate entity from the Seminary, few in
higher education know that. Unfortunately, it appears to me, older
and more savvy people at the Seminary "discovered" Peter and he has
become "the voice" of the opposition to the board of trustees. And
the wide circulation of his article now may well lead to national
stories and difficult questions for the College and Seminary about
free speech, use of institutional communications property for this
anti-institutional use, the ethics of Peter Kerr as a faculty member
of a Christian college (let alone a "journalist"), etc.

Thus, I am copying Peter's superiors at the College (and bcc'ing
Peter, too, as he promised his motives were to seek and report only
the truth).

This is only one of many things busy trustees are concerned about.
For those getting this who do not know, I have been a consultant to
the board on the annual performance review of Dr. Greenway. But my
concern now is even greater for the reputation of Christian higher
education. I have talked confidentially to a dozen or so national
leaders and consultants who just can't believe the situation. Of
course the board will prevail, but at what cost to the Wilmore
community.

Respectfully,
[consultant]

------------------Professor Kerr reply to his college supervisors----------------------

Dear elder brothers and sisters in Christ,

I understand Dr. A has written you a disturbing letter that expresses his concern regarding the ATS leadership impasse and how the news has spread. While I considered not responding to Dr. A’s comments, I care too much for those above me at Asbury College to allow my reputation to be tarnished without giving some context to Dr. A’s words. It is clear he is attempting to carry out his formerly veiled threats to my job and reputation, and so I believe a response is in order.

Let me start with repentance. I am sorry I placed the name "Asbury College" after my name on the narrative of events, when I should have simply said "a Christian College." I am proud to be on faculty at Asbury College, and I simply had not thought through a possible confusion with the seminary, especially since I was posting on a restricted ATS alumni website. My intention was to make it clear I was not an ATS faculty member. This error was properly brought to my attention by President Crothers and I promptly fixed the oversight. I humbly ask for forgiveness for my error, and for any inconvenience it may have created.

My motives for entering this issue have been made clear from the start. I have nothing to gain personally, but was convicted that I had to step in where I saw a grave injustice to a godly man. I promised long ago in the midst of Washington DC politics that I would always stand with the godly in their time of need. During President Greenway’s installation ceremony I was a student, and at that time we all confirmed our belief that God called Greenway to the position of President. My few interactions with him since simply confirmed to me his character and calling. Until President Greenway forfeits his calling by his actions, I feel bound by my word to support his presidency.

The ATS leadership impasse first came to my attention as I was asked to assist the ATS administration (under executive committee governance) to create a media release on the subject. I was greatly surprised at the request and immediately lent my influence to the more reasonable people who did not think dragging the external media into the fray would be beneficial. My astonishment at such a request led me to research the issue further, and I discovered what I continue to believe is an injustice aimed at President Greenway and being perpetrated by a small task force. The charge against President Greenway began as lack of performance, drifted into a vague "polarization" claim brought by Dr. A's report, and finally was leveled officially as a charge of "insubordination". I will let you read Dr. Johnson’s letter and I have attached my Version 1.1 letter for you to draw your own conclusions as to the details.

Regardless, my experience in PR and giving crisis communications training, plus seeing politics at their worst in the Pentagon, let me immediately see that the charge of "insubordination" and the subsequent silence of the task force put President Greenway in an impossible position. He could not (and still cannot) speak out because then he would seem to verify the claim of "insubordination", and the longer the silence remained the more rumors spread at the seminary that maligned his character. I wrote the narrative to give the silenced a voice, to expose what I continue to believe is an injustice, and to halt rumors against a godly man. I believe my narrative prompted the Dr. Johnson response letter that came 18 days after President Greenways’ forced "indefinite leave".

As to specific charges made in Dr. A's recent email:

First, he makes it sound like I in some way published a document to the whole seminary community, when in fact all I have done is post my findings on the "Alumni Coffee House" website that is in the First Class internet system with very restricted access. Even current ATS students cannot access the site, but I can as I am an MDIV alumnus of ATS. I have not escalated the issue from that site, and I even intercepted and convinced a local TV station not to do a story on the unfolding issue as I think it is an internal matter. I understand my writings have been given wings by other people, and my narrative of events has been publicly lauded and endorsed (and possibly disseminated?) by various tenured faculty at ATS to include Dr. Joel Green, Dr. Larry Wood, Dr. Jerry Walls, and Dr. Chuck Gutensen. Throughout the situation I have resisted slander and never mentioned a single name in a derogatory manner, and I continue to believe that the narrative I have written is a valid perspective held by many at ATS. I was surprised to discover the narrative I first posted was censored, being removed from the "Alumni Coffee House" site within a few hours of being posted. I am on good terms with the ATS PR folks, and I told them I would respect their request not to re-post my narrative, as I wish to be submissive as far as possible. However, many other alumni and faculty at ATS were surprised an academic institution would censor free speech on a restricted site, and they pressed the administration into restoring my post. I am convinced it was this censorship that made my post have such longevity, distribution, and appeal. It also allowed me to gather more facts and make good my promise to post again as more facts came to my attention. That is why I posted version 1.1 (attached).

Second, Dr. A makes me sound guilty for not trying to get all of the facts, and specifically for not interviewing Dr. Dan Johnson. He questions my integrity and motives. The truth is, everything I have done has been transparent, and I have attempted to get both sides of the story. In fact, I have written Dr. Jim Smith (the Board Chairman) three times asking for his input and giving him time to respond before my version 1.1 came out. While I intended to speak to Dr. Johnson, I already got his side of the story from his own narrative (which I applaud him for making) and from my call with Dr. A. Furthermore, Dr. A criticizes me for not publishing another "version 2.0" document, based on his conversation with me. This is an unjust accusation. During our conversation he repeatedly insisted we were only talking on "deep, deep background" or "off the record." I have nothing to hide, but he did not wish to give me any material on the record, and I will not break his confidence. Following accepted journalism practices, his chosen level of attribution means I really don’t have anything else I can publish. Furthermore, having looked into some of his answers, I do not yet find them compelling. Finally, I have been busy for this past week, and I have a full time job teaching, a part time private practice to supplement my pay so I can teach, and a part time ministry to which I am called, plus a family with young children, etc. I fail to see how one week’s delay for an interview I don’t really need is grounds to deprecate me by insinuating I am refusing to gather all the facts and questioning my integrity (specifically my stated desire to seek the truth). I can assure all parties the truth is exactly what I seek, and that I can be rather objective because I have nothing at stake in the current dispute.
Third, Dr A deftly paints me as some sort of pawn of higher powers at the seminary. This is false, and if used in a rhetoric class, I would say it was ad hominem and poor form. As explained above, I was not coerced into my actions, but have followed my conscience. I have no hidden motives or agendas, and though the vast majority of the faculty at ATS passed a resolution calling for the executive committee to immediately reinstate President Greenway, I was in no way coerced by any of them to tell the story.

Furthermore, contrary to his email, this is not about people disrespecting the ATS board. To my knowledge, no one has suggested opposition to the board at large. Many people do feel the task force (5-6 people) is to blame for the entire debacle, and that Dr. A’s report is the central instigator of the events. They would question why Dr. A’s unscientific/unrepresentative survey was allowed so much prominence and created so much disturbance, and why common leadership and feedback processes were not followed when dealing with President Greenway. I question why a man of Dr. A’s clear reputation and merit feels the need to silence a minor voice like mine, and why he doesn’t play the role of moderator and mediator to help resolve the impasse instead of being one of the primary voices in the dispute. I in no way wish to enter a spitting war here. In fact, I think there are many good people on both sides of the issue, and that we need to stop attacking each other and start attacking the issue. We need to act like the Christians we are, and stop using lawyers and board meetings and blind copy emails to settle our disputes. All I have done is try to be a giver of light. What a testimony it would be if we could have mediation and resolve the dispute on the way to "court", even as suggested by Jesus in Matthew 5.

To my superiors at Asbury College I simply wish to express my submission. I did not guess my post to the "Alumni Coffee House" would be censored and then gain such an audience. I did not act out of the desire for gossip, but instead to quell the gossip about a good man. I did not act to rebel against an authority, but instead to support one duly called and confirmed by the community. I have not acted without honor and character, nor for ill gains or motives, and I do not believe my actions reflect poorly on our college. Instead, I am a person who is willing to risk my job and reputation for the sake of conscience, truth, and the hope of eventual justice for another. I am also very open to your rebuke and advice in this matter, and if you feel so inclined as to direct me to cease my activities I am willing to set aside my free speech rights on this matter for the good of the community and our great college.

Sincerely with love and respect,
Peter A. Kerr