Since I offended many in the way I originally posted this, I'll present the information now seriously.
In a letter to the board of trustees, Jim Smith indicated that an Investigative Committee was being appointed relative to the firing of President Greenway. The name of John McNairy was suggested to chair the committee. There was nothing in the letter to indicate any skeletons in Greenway's closet to justify firing him.
This letter fits with that which the majority of faculty have long been claiming: that Jim Smith and the EXCO core have no intention for Greenway to be reinstated, that McNairy is one of the ones squarely behind Smith, and that the board is divided. Otherwise there is no way this information could have come to me.
From Smith's perspective, it makes sense to have the paper firing Greenway ready for the board to sign on the 17th.
Now 21 days since Smith could have called the board and, thus, since this crisis could have been resolved.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Dr. Schenck, what's a WMD? Last time you used the acronym in a post I thought you meant 'weapons of mass destruction.'
Anonymous, can you really expect anyone to take you seriously from behind the mask of anonymity? Part of the reason we are dealing with turmoil is because there is a lack of honesty, transparency, and respect for one another. Mr. Webb might well be communicating caustically but I don't see where your anonymous rumor-mongering is any different.
Rumour is a pipe
Blown by surmises, jealousies, conjectures
And of so easy and so plain a stop
That the blunt monster with uncounted heads,
The still-discordant wavering multitude,
Can play upon it. - W.S., King Henry IV
My, oh my, Mr Schenck, how you are indeed having so many play upon your pipe blowing.
This blog is not helpful to this situation, at all. Its surmises and conjectures fill the public arena with speculation. It operates under the guise of reporting, but it's voyeurism peppered with Christianese. Plainly, it is rumor that assumes motives, and uses character assault as its means.
I have no interest in representing any side in this situation. I have no comment on the situation itself. There are appointed people of the greatest caliber of character involved with and dealing with this complex situation, and far be it from me, or you, to interject comment on that conversation.
Having no other allegiance, my only interest is to confront you in your arena. You seem to find yourself of some mild consequence, and, having no direct experience with you, I cannot verify the validity of your regard for yourself.
However, your words are of consequence to the uncounted heads they reach.
Of this entire situation, from all that has happened from August til now, from Lexington to what will transpire in Atlanta, the daily pipe blowing on this blog is and will be the most disconcerting.
The rumor is dangerous. The character destruction, maddening. But the cloaking of agenda in Christian pleas is outright cowardly.
If I was Jim Smith, I'd meet you behind the bus barn after school. If I was Greenway, I'd put you in detention. If I was God, I'd take your pipe and spank you with it.
Ken, I stand with you in wanting to see Jeff Greenway be given a fair hearing and for unquestionable procedures to be followed to resolve this mess that has descended upon the Asbury community. However, I am concerned about some of your posts. I’m not sure that you understand how they come across to others. Things that are your attempts at being “light-hearted,” do not translate as such to me, and obviously neither do they to others. That is sometimes the problem of living in an age of written communication that can be sent rapidly with one touch of a button. If an investigative committee has indeed been appointed, would it not be appropriate to allow that announcement to be made through official channels rather than as a “rumor”? Instead, such posts just come across as gossip and seem to add unnecessary fuel to an already blazing fire. Your tongue-in-cheek reference to members of the EXCO as the “bad guys” is also troubling. Obviously, when emotions come into play as they have in this situation, it is easy for people on both sides of the issue to characterize people who hold opposite viewpoints as being the “bad guys.” It is also human nature to hide barbs in the cloak of humor. I’ve done it myself. However, in all fairness, just as Jeff Greenway deserves a fair hearing before the full BOT, so also do members of the EXCO.
While I believe strongly in justice and mercy in our dealings with one another, such dealings must always be wrapped in love—love that chooses not to vilify others for holding a different opinion—love that chooses not to use “name-calling” terms while still raising questions about what appears to us as injustice. If you feel that those who hold a differing opinion from you are the ones vilifying, please don’t stoop to that level by slinging names back at them. That begins to resemble a schoolyard brawl and surely is not what God intends.
In his sermon on a “Catholic Spirit,” John Wesley drew heavily on Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 13—words that we would all do well to consider no matter where our passions and sympathies lie:
“`If thine heart be right, as mine with thy heart,’ then love me with a very tender affection, as a friend that is closer than a brother; as a brother in Christ, a fellow citizen of the New Jerusalem, a fellow soldier engaged in the same warfare, under the same Captain of our salvation. Love me as a companion in the kingdom and patience of Jesus, and a joint heir of his glory.
“Love me (but in a higher degree than thou dost the bulk of mankind) with the love that is long suffering and kind; that is patient; if I am ignorant or out of the way, bearing and not increasing my burden; and is tender, soft, compassionate still;--that envieth not, if at any time it please God to prosper me in his work even more than thee. Love me with the love that is not provoked, either at my follies or infirmities; or even at my acting (if it should sometimes so appear to thee) not according to the will of God. Love me so as to think no evil of me; to put away all jealousy and evil surmising. Love me with the love that covereth all things; that never reveals either my faults or infirmities;--that believeth all things; is always willing to think the best to put the fairest construction on all my words and actions;--that hopeth all things; either that the thing related was never done; or not done with such circumstances as are related; or, at least, that it was done with a good intention, or in a sudden stress of temptation. And hope to the end, that whatever is amiss, will by the grace of God, be corrected and whatever is wanting, supplied, through the riches of his mercy in Christ Jesus.”
Would that we would all practice such a catholic spirit in this troubling times.
Ken, I do not believe that you mean harm by any of your posts. You are passionate about shedding light on what you believe to be a gross injustice. That is to be fervently commended. However, my concern still stands that in your passion some of your rhetoric has crossed a line into passing on “rumor” and “name-calling.” Such things will hardly contribute to resolution and healing to the Asbury community.
Ken,
I find your response to Jay to be very troubling, at best. I think your assertion that the Board of Trustees is "out to get" Dr. Greenway is equally troubling. These are men and women who give a great deal of time, prayer, wisdom, and financial resources to Asbury. These are men and women who want what is best for the school. Many of them are grieved at the present situation as well, but have chosen to keep their promise of confidentiality.
I pray in the future that you will only post things that you know for certain to be factual and realize the consequences of posting rumors or statements that simply aren't true.
those who have such trust in authority--even authority that doesn't communicate and so refuses to be held accountable---have not been 'burned.' they have lived sheltered lives and are too naive to see that when someone in authority refuses to be held accountable--when they refuse to communicate with the 'underlings', in those situations, one will usually find a machiavellian manipulating the oligarchy in his favor. this happens the most in christian governments of schools and churches under the guise of godly concern.
ken, we appreciate you.
Becky, Jay, and Greg, you are always welcome here to temper my anger and be the voice of reason. All are. Obviously I don't help Greenway if my manner turns off others.
But all lightheartedness aside, my multiple sources of information are 1) only at one remove from both board members and Greenway and 2) many of them are people whose virtue and wisdom I would trust with my life. From where you sit, it is appropriate for you to second guess me (thus from where you sit I have called them rumors).
But from where I sit, this is reliable information that I believe benefits Greenway to get out. You will not convince me at this point that Christ does not want it to get it out also.
Please continue to help balance me and speak to me what you think Christ wants you to.
Two weeks ago I was ready to sign any petition put in front of me. I even wrote an unsent letter to a BoT member who I know well asking him to repent of the Board's actions and reinstate Greenway.
Since then my tune has changed considerably due to the undeniable fact that those who were so persuasive at first have seen their persuasive arguments disintegrate into unsubstantiated rumors and gossip.
It seems to me that the same behavior for which the BoT has been skewered over (secrecy, non-communication) is on display by their critics as well.
As much as the Board has disappointed me by not being more forthcoming I am equally disappointed by its critics. I care about truth and unsubstantiated information is not truth. It's cowardice. I am ashamed of my Alma Mater and her alumni, administration, board, faculty, and staff. None of this bears any witness to the Cross of Christ.
I can't think of any argument that has disintegrated. I can't think of any comment in the "We Wonder" series that has been disproven. Which one did you have in mind?
Ken
You are lucky to see such a memorandum. Did it shed any light on whether or not Jeff Greenway was to be heard at the upcoming meeting? Did you get to read the whole memorandum or just a part?
Us inquring minds want to know!
Anon, the memo does not say that Greenway is invited, only that he is to be available for this date.
But you and others all along have been pushing a false conclusion with this question. Part of the purpose of the "We Wonder" series is to ensure that things like this happen. Would Smith invite Greenway, for example, if the We Wonder series does not push the issue? Maybe he would; maybe he wouldn't. The We Wonder series clearly puts pressure on him to do so if he hasn't been planning to and is thus a good thing.
So kudos to Jim Smith if he plans to invite Greenway to the meeting! But the inference you are pushing--that the We Wonder series was meant to deceive--doesn't follow at all.
Anon, I might say further that the memo is very carefully worded at this point. First, Smith says that the board needs to hear from Greenway and says he will tell Greenway to "set aside" the 17th.
However, he goes on to leave open the possibility that Greenway’s perspective may not be needed after the investigative committee meets.
So the overall thrust of the memo is that Greenway might be invited, depending on what happens in the investigative committee this week.
Post a Comment