This is not meant to stop discussion on Holiness Zones, but the faculty and administration of Asbury have apparently begun a "we wonder" series addressed to the board. Here is the first:
_______________
The flurry of reports and narratives dating from 1 September 2006 has shed light on, and generated heat regarding, the critical situation in which Asbury Theological Seminary now finds itself. We are left with a number of questions. This is the first.
We wonder why President Greenway has yet to be invited to the meeting of the Board of Trustees on October 17, 2006.
We understand that, because President Greenway is on indefinite leave of absence without presidential duties, he cannot attend the called meeting of the Board on October 17, 2006, without an invitation from the Board. Since the sole purpose of this called meeting of the Board is to address the employment of the president, how can President Greenway not be allowed to be present? Would not due process include allowing President Greenway to hear and address any accusation(s) brought against him? Will the Board be asked to render a decision regarding President Greenway’s contractual relationship with the Seminary without first having face-to-face communication with President Greenway?
Signed:
Ronald K. Crandall, D.Th.P., Dean of the ESJ School of World Mission and Evangelism, McCreless Professor of Evangelism, and Sundo Kim Professor of Evangelism and Practical Theology
Richard L. Gray, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Leadership and Christian Ministry
Joel B. Green, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament Interpretation, and Director of Greek Studies
Chuck Gutenson, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Philosophical Theology
George G. Hunter III, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Evangelism and Church Growth
Hugo Magallanes, Ph.D., Assistant Provost -- Florida Campus, and Associate Professor of Church in Society
Terry C. Muck, Ph.D., Professor of Missions and World Religions
M. Robert Mulholland Jr., Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Ruth Anne Reese, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Lester Ruth, Ph.D., Lily May Jarvis Professor of Christian Worship
Michael A. Rynkiewich, Ph.D., Director of Postgraduate Studies, and Professor of Anthropology
Daryl Smith, Ed.D., Director of Mentored Ministry and Associate Professor of Mentored Ministry and Christian Leadership
Catherine Stonehouse, Ph.D., Dean of the School of the Practice of Ministry, and Orlean Bullard Beeson Professor of Christian Discipleship
Robert G. Tuttle, Jr., Ph.D., Professor of World Christianity
Jerry L. Walls, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy of Religion
Ben Witherington III, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Laurence W. Wood, Ph.D., Frank Paul Morris Professor of Systematic Theology
If you would like to add your name to this list, whether you are an alumnus or just a concerned individual: http://www.asburypetition.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
You know what I wonder? Where are the names of the profs that deeply affected my own holiness? I don't write this to say that those who signed it didn't--I only had classes with five signers and loved them greatly.
This is just a fraction of the faculty at both campuses. It looks like it's mostly ESJ and NT profs. Where are the theology, IBS, OT, and preaching profs?
I realize that in a medium such as this my questions could sound accusatory but they are not. In fact, I'm a little more skittish to affirm it because of the lack of signees.
I am disappointed that not more faculty have signed this as well. I assume that the reason either lies with 1) lack of awareness or 2) a sense that this is the wrong way to go about doing things.
As for the point of the petition, I cannot see how anyone could object to it in terms of rightness. The accused has a right to face his or her accusers except in the most extreme of circumstances, none of which applies in this case.
I believe the broader board will put significant pressure on the chair to invite Greenway.
You might be interested in knowing that (1) the faculty who began work on this series of questions decided to ask only tenured faculty to sign-on; (2) not all tenured faculty were asked; and (3) some tenured faculty who were asked did not respond in a timely manner since we were putting this together over the weekend for a 1 Oct posting. (It is hard to imagine that some of my colleagues are not constantly on email!) Even so, the number of signers is equal to about 2/3 of the tenured faculty. / Joel Green
Wood & Gutenson are both theology profs and Lester Ruth I actually think is now under the 'theology' umbrella of things. So thats 3 right there. A descent number of those who did sign it.
"Would not due process include allowing President Greenway to hear and address any accusation(s) brought against him?"
Due process is fine... but wouldn't our identity as Christ-followers also mandate this? I realize this is complicated and there may be parts to the story we are not aware of at this time... but this just seems childish. Or is it just me?
I appreciate your added information Dr. Green. Point 2 is a little hard to swallow from my limited perspective. I understand asking tenured folks but not asking all of them is something I do not understand.
As to Ken's point about the rightness of the statement, I agree. In fact, even though I don't know all of the facts of this event I am writing a board member that I know as a mentor and friend to beg him to speak up for fairness and transparency.
My lingering question is one that I am sure will not be answered because the people who could answer probably don't read blogs much less their comments :-) I'm still hung up on the 1/3 of the professors who are tenured but did not sign. Especially if the 3-4 I have in mind were asked.
Whew... the Trustees are in a real pickle!
If they deny Greenway his day in court before his accusers they appear unjust and arrogant which hurts ATS more than Greenway ever could have.
If they grant Greenway time he will confess his faults, ask forgiveness, and ask for help to do better (you know the “Dig around the tree and give it another year before cutting it down” thingy) and they will have to reverse the eXec action.
Either way the knot of people intent on removing Greenway gets lots of egg on their face(no mud, no worse that mud).
What a pickle!
God help them do the just and best thing the fair and right way!
It seems to me that many members of the faculty are at direct odds with the board. This is perhaps far more concerning than any other development down in Wilmore, to me at least.
As a complete Asbury outsider I would view that and most seminaries as the sum of their faculty. That is 90% of the reputation I give a school. Another 8% would be the location & campus facilities. Perhaps 1% would be the administration and another 1% would be the weather. :-)
So, again as an outsider, I would always tend to give creedence to faculty of a school like that.
I'm sure it's very troubling for alumni, donors and current students to see the faculty and Board on such different pages. A civil war of that kind requires immediate reconciliation between the board and the faculty--by nearly any means possible. How can the board be so unaware of that need?
Strange stuff. Again--I agree with the earlier sentiments that at least in a denomination there is a big official hammer to bring to town to quickly and forcefully solve such things. If something like this happened at IWU or Houghton the General Superintendents would ride into Marion wearing cammo and driving Tanks!!!
And I dare say they might even enjoy taking over for a few months. :-) I think I'd enjoy that too. (Vut only for a few months) They'd be performing a crucial role that none others could perform positionally. Asbury needs a general superintendent! Independence stinks when nasty conflict arises. Even the King of England's rule is better than Gettysburg and Anteitam.
Hey Ken = for the good of our Denomination perhaps you could cause some ruckus at IWU to give our Generals just such a cause? Things are going just far too well in Marion right now.
PS - I hope you know I'm kidding on all this. Trying to lighten the mood and point out this key difference in the conflict management dynamic at Asbury.
The problem with your IWU scenario is that the solution would likely be to fire me. :-) The community would be enriched, the generals would have a chance to run the place. I'd be on the streets... Hmmm. Well, I'll let someone else do it.
One interesting thing is that I have been accused by some of being mean spirited, inflammatory, and have maligned the character of fellow Christians. I have been sarcastic at times and used extra-rational rhetoric at times :-) Most staid seminary types try to win it on logic alone (=losing strategy... if this were just about truth and not about power no one would be complaining).
Anyway, here was my response:
"Rich, I completely disagree with this conclusion. Am I angry? Certainly. Have I drawn conclusions on the basis of evidence? Yes. Does that equate to being mean spirited? No. Sometimes my children think I'm mean when I give them a time out for disobeying, but this is a lack of understanding on their part. I will stand down the moment anyone shows me any flaw in my train of thought here.
Because I am Wesley-an, I believe character is assessed on the basis of intent--and here I have never claimed that Smith or the big 4 have bad intentions. Accordingly, I have not tried to malign their character. What I have done is make statements about the use of power in this situation.
But know this: if you think Smith and the EXCO have power now, they will have absolute power if they win this thing unchecked by the broader board. You watch, a lot of key professors will leave Asbury or be forced out. The best scholars, those who can choose where they go, will not come to Asbury knowing that those with the power don't pay any attention to their faculty's voice. That is not a mean-spirited comment--it's just the facts. You tell me, would a faculty prospect go to a place where an 84% vote of the faculty is completely ignored by those in power?
This is not inflammatory, this is an important statement of exactly what is at stake here. This is a power struggle, and rhetoric is a part of power struggles."
Post a Comment