Comment by Larry Wood on Asbury Situation

Peter's Kerr narrative explains the view of the overwhelming majority of the faculty and our faculty leaders on this. Our faculty leaders have worked very closely with President Greenway and attest to his excellent interpersonal-relational skills and Christ-like spirit. We believe it is just and fair to reinstate President Greenway's presidentital responsibilities immediately based on the course of events that Kerr's narrative appropriately reports. About 8 of our faculty disagree with the majority, but I will defend their right and privilege to do so. Simply being the majority doesn't make anything right, but at least the faculty believed that it had sufficient reasons to support President Greenway.

Is there a dichotomy between two "Greenways" as has been alleged, as if there is "Outside Greenway" and "Inside Greeway." Our faculty leaders have worked closely and intimately with him and support him fully, thus dispelling such a characterization. Is he an effective leader? This faculty thinks so. What about his fund raising abilities? Who can measure one's effectiveness at fundraising in two years?

Some of the faculty have been more worried about the irregularities of the Task Force and the Executive Committee than anything else. This is why it is important for the whole Board to decide this matter and it is important for the whole board to have all the various interpretations and facts at their disposal, including input from students, faculty, alumni, and donors. Especially in this day of electronic information where open communication is so much more possible, this is healthy for all of us to be involved in this process. It's part of the Association of Theological Schools' policy of "Shared Governance." Things of this importance should be decided openly. The Executive Committee has made it clear that this is not an issue about moral integrity, and President Greenway is quite willing for everything to be open to the Asbury Community and hence any claims about the need to keep confidences are without merit. Transparency is greatly needed in this process if "shared governance" is to be respected. The openness of this process should not lead to dysfunctional divisiveness but it should be an expression of caring enough to engage and accept our responsibility as members of the community.

To be sure, honest and good people with deep Christian commitments hold differences of opinions on this matter. I personally think it would be tragic if President Greenway were dismissed for the apparent "reasons" that have been offered, not such much for him but for the Asbury community. President Greenway will "land on his feet" no matter what happens on Oct 17. His future ministry and success is not in question, being the man of integrity and strength of character that he is and being so widely and highly regarded in the life of the Church. However, the ATS community would suffer from the loss of his leadership, and our witness and integrity may be called into question because of so many apparent irregularities that have plaqued this process. But, in the final anlaysis, when the BOT makes it decision, it must and should be respected and adhered to without controversy. In the meantime, it is appropriate for us to openly discuss and offer our views on this matter no matter how different they may be. As Christians we will at times agree to disagree. We are all part of the same Asbury family, and it is healthy when family members can disagree without being dysfunctional about it. So far I think that those on both sides of this issue have acted responsibly.

With this said, if you think that President Greenway's responsibilities should be restored, I encourage you to visit:

http://www.asburypetition.blogspot.com/ .

If not or you prefer not to take sides, I think we all respect that too.
Blessings,
Larry Wood