Proposal from the Academic Council and Members of the Faculty
We, as faculty members of Asbury Theological Seminary, in the spirit of our Wesleyan tradition, request of the Board of Trustees and President Greenway a course of action that will bring healing and resumption of normalcy to the Seminary at the present time. Such a process needs to be conducted in ways which show full congruence with the standards and bylaws by which the Seminary functions. It needs to uphold the integrity of the Seminary in its life and practice, according to our mutual commitment to the Wesleyan standard of holiness. What is at stake are the Seminary’s programs of education and its Christian witness and integrity in the eyes of its constituency and the larger world. Indeed, we have here been given a unique opportunity to model what it means to live out the possibility of reconciliation and restoration in Jesus Christ.
We, as faculty members of Asbury Theological Seminary, acknowledge our full regard for the Board of Trustees and its authority to act in matters of governance, and recognize that we have no authority to direct or pressure the Board in matters of policy, nor to undermine its authority in conducting its duties. We also acknowledge our obligation, by virtue of collegial governance, to share our concerns with the Board and to communicate our best thinking on the matter at hand.
Consequently, the following course of action is proposed, as an appropriate way to initiate such reconciliation:
1. Mediation: Recognizing the damaged relationships, a third-party mediator will be introduced, who has connections with none who are involved in the present dispute but who is acceptable to all persons therein involved, and who will be charged with helping to identify a course for reconciliation. This mediator will have responsibility for addressing all substantive issues that bear upon a just and redemptive resolution of the matter at hand. It is acknowledged that this will be a complicated and uncomfortable task, involving hard work and sacrifices for all parties to the discussion. In no sense should this mediation be seen as a perfunctory exercise, nor one whose outcome may be presupposed. Rather, we perceive that the traversing together of this difficult path can best serve to reconcile what may otherwise remain as irreconcilable differences.
2. Stability & Process: We respectfully request that while this mediation process is taking place that President Jeffrey Greenway be reinstated with the understanding that a new review task force will be formed, selected by the Board of Trustees as a whole.
In view of the high spiritual and moral standards expected from Asbury Theological Seminary, and as mandated by its ethos statement, a path like the one here proposed would be a remarkable embodiment and witness to Jesus Christ, and our lives in mutual covenant with Him, for the sake of the larger Seminary community and its witness to the world. This course of action could offer an extraordinary model of conflict resolution for the entire community, consistent with the Wesleyan affirmations concerning sin and grace. This pathway would demonstrate that we conduct ourselves in ways that exceed the "business as usual" standards which seem to prevail both in the religious and secular spheres of our culture. It would offer us the finest opportunity to demonstrate our love for one another, as those whose lives are rooted in Jesus Christ, where reconciliation is always an achievable outcome.
Addendum: This document is developed at this time as an official statement of the Academic Council, adopted at its regularly scheduled meeting of 9 October 2006, and presented via email to the faculty to enable their response, prior to the forthcoming special meeting of the Board of Trustees.
The regular scheduling of the Academic Council meeting explains the timing of the presentation of this proposal.
Respectfully submitted, The Academic Council, 9 October 2006
Christina T. Accornero, Registrar
Leslie A. Andrews, Associate Provost and Dean of the Doctor of Ministry Program
Bill T. Arnold, Vice President of Academic Affairs & Provost
David R. Bauer, Dean of the School of Biblical Interpretation and Proclamation
Kenneth A. Boyd, Dean of Information Services
Ronald K. Crandall, Dean of the ESJ School of World Mission and Evangelism
R. Dale Hale, Director of Distributed Learning
Randall W. Jessen, Dean of the Beeson International Center for Biblical Preaching & Church Leadership
C. Reginald Johnson, Dean of the School of Theology and Formation
Hugo Magallanes, Assistant Provost, FL Campus
Michael A. Rynkiewich, Director of Postgraduate Studies
Catherine Stonehouse, Dean of the School of Practical Theology
The following faculty members also endorse this proposal:
Garwood P. Anderson, Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies
Jack Connell, Associate Dean of the Beeson International Center for Biblical Preaching & Church Leadership
Allan Coppedge, Ralph Waldo Beeson Professor of Christian Theology
Joel B. Green, Professor of New Testament Interpretation
Charles E. Gutenson, Associate Professor of Philosophical Theology
James K. Hampton, Assistant Professor of Youth Ministry
Anthony J. Headley, Professor of Counseling
Virginia Todd Holeman, Professor of Counseling
Barbara Holsinger, Associate Director of Mentored Ministries, Wilmore Campus
George G. Hunter III, Distinguished Professor of Communication & Evangelism
Eunice L. Irwin, Associate Professor of Mission and Contextual Theology
Beverly C. Johnson-Miller, Associate Professor of Christian Discipleship
Kevin Kinghorn, Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Religion
Ellen L. Marmon, Diaconal Minister and Instructor in Christian Discipleship
Joy J. Moore, Assistant Professor of Preaching
Tapiwa N. Mucherera, Associate Professor of Pastoral Counseling
Terry C. Muck, Professor of World Religions
M. Robert Mulholland, Jr., Professor of New Testament, Chair of NT Department
J. Steven O’Malley, John T. Seamands Professor of Methodist Holiness History [signed as an individual faculty member and not in role as faculty representative to the Board of Trustees]
Christine Pohl, Professor of Church in Society
Lester Ruth, Lily May Jarvis Professor of Christian Worship
Stephen A. Seamands, Professor of Christian Doctrine
Stephen P. Stratton, Associate Professor of Counseling and Pastoral Care
David L. Thompson, F.M. and Ada Thompson Professor of Biblical Studies
Thomas F. Tumblin, Associate Professor of Leadership
Jerry L. Walls, Professor of Philosophy of Religion
Ben Witherington III, Professor of New Testament
Laurence W. Wood, Frank Paul Morris Professor of Systematic Theology
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I made a related posting today in the Alumni Coffee House in response to this comment made by someone, "This is a matter between Greenway and the board to deal with."
My Response
I consider a good deal of this discussion moot at this point--the board has heard the concerns I believe and so now we wait to see what they and hopefully the Spirit come up with.
But I don't agree that this is just between the board and Greenway--I strongly disagree.
Consider:
1. Greenway's best course of action is to lie down and submit to the board. The charge is insubordination. The best response for him is thus submission, not vocality for wrongs done him
And don't diss him because he has lawyers who are trying to get him the best deal possible if he doesn't end up as president--this is unfortunately a necessary evil in these messy things, and the board chair has had lawyer types doing messy type things for him as well.
2. But this means that someone else needs to bring up any mitigating factors in the situation. And if there are mitigating factors, it is important that they be taken into consideration. Greenway can't bring them up, so the We Wonder series has. You can second guess the intent of this person or that person, but the series itself is righteous and important.
3. But let's say that the board decides that Greenway's gone. If there are legitimate governance issues, these will outlive Greenway. If they remain, the faculty will be forced to live on with them.
4. While you can accuse me of being out of the loop, I don't think you can say this of the key signers of the "We Wonder" series. These are "knowers." And their concerns seem legitimate. Most students and alumni are not informed enough to tell these faculty that they don't have legitimate governance concerns. And frankly, David Seamands taught me a long time ago that if someone feels a certain way, then you have to treat their feelings seriously, even if deep down you think they are overreacting.
[By the way, do you see how long this list of faculty signers is!! It has only gained in depth, prominence and number. Note that the provost has signed this, along with David Bauer, Dean of the School of Biblical Studies and Proclamation.]
So it seems really misguided to say, "The We Wonder people don't even care about Greenway. They're just against the board." I believe they do care about Greenway. But there are serious health issues at an institution if a board ignores its faculty, as most of the faculty at Asbury feel it has up to this point (admitting that the broader board has not met yet).
In addition to whatever they do with Greenway, I believe the board needs to come out Tuesday with a strong statement that empowers its faculty, who right now seem depressed, confused, and some of their eyes are wandering toward other directions.
No one (especially the women faculty) wants to work at a place where you have to wear badges that say, "A castrated faculty is a happy faculty."
I am very thankful that at IWU right now President Henry Smith and Board Chair Carl Shepherd have strongly given the faculty the sense that their opinions, needs, and dreams are as highly valued as they have ever been. We are well on our way to President Smith's 10th goal--that IWU would be one of the best Christian colleges to work at.
Look inside the Beeson Center and you'll find the interim president awaiting the green light.
How do I recognise a bully?
http://www.bullyonline.org
/workbully/amibeing.htm#How
Most bullying is traceable to one person, male or female - bullying is not a gender issue. Bullies are often clever people (especially female bullies) but you can be clever too.
Who does this describe in your life?
* Jekyll & Hyde nature - vicious and vindictive in private, but innocent and charming in front of witnesses; no-one can (or wants to) believe this individual has a vindictive nature - only the current target sees both sides
* is a convincing, compulsive liar and when called to account, will make up anything spontaneously to fit their needs at that moment
* uses lots of charm and is always plausible and convincing when peers, superiors or others are present; the motive of the charm is deception and its purpose is to compensate for lack of empathy
* relies on mimicry to convince others that they are a "normal" human being but their words, writing and deeds are hollow, superficial and glib
* displays a great deal of certitude and self-assuredness to mask their insecurity
* excels at deception
* exhibits unusual inappropriate attitudes to sexual matters or sexual behaviour; underneath the charming exterior there are often suspicions or intimations of sexual harassment, sex discrimination or sexual abuse (sometimes racial prejudice as well)
* exhibits much controlling behaviour and is a control freak
* displays a compulsive need to criticise whilst simultaneously refusing to acknowledge, value and praise others
* when called upon to share or address the needs and concerns of others, responds with impatience, irritability and aggression
* often has an overwhelming, unhealthy and narcissistic need to portray themselves as a wonderful, kind, caring and compassionate person, in contrast to their behaviour and treatment of others; the bully is oblivious to the discrepancy between how they like to be seen (and believe they are seen), and how they are actually seen
* has an overbearing belief in their qualities of leadership but cannot distinguish between leadership (maturity, decisiveness, assertiveness, trust and integrity) and bullying (immaturity, impulsiveness, aggression, distrust and deceitfulness)
* when called to account, immediately and aggressively denies everything, then counter-attacks with distorted or fabricated criticisms and allegations; if this is insufficient, quickly feigns victimhood, often by bursting into tears (the purpose is to avoid answering the question and thus evade accountability by manipulating others through the use of guilt)
* is also ... aggressive, devious, manipulative, spiteful, vengeful, doesn't listen, can't sustain mature adult conversation, lacks a conscience, shows no remorse, is drawn to power, emotionally cold and flat, humourless, joyless, ungrateful, dysfunctional, disruptive, divisive, rigid and inflexible, selfish, insincere, insecure, immature and deeply inadequate, especially in interpersonal skills
http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Paranoid_personality_disorder
The serial bully's fear of exposure is reminiscent of Paranoid Personality Disorder, a pattern of pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent. An inability to trust, doubts about others' loyalty, distortion and fabrication, misinterpretation, and bearing grudges unnecessarily are hallmarks of the disorder. Pathological jealousy, instinctive aggressive counter-attack, the need to control others, and the gathering of trivial or circumstantial "evidence" to support their jealous beliefs also feature.
The DSM-IV Diagnostic Criteria for Paranoid Personality Disorder are:
A. A pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent as indicated by at least four of:
1. suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming or deceiving him or her
2. is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates
3. is unwilling to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her
4. reads hidden demeaning or threatening meanings into benign remarks or events
5. persistently bears grudges, ie is unforgiving of (perceived) insults, injuries or slights
6. perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that are not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to counter-attack
7. has recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding the fidelity of spouse or sexual partner
B. Does not occur exclusively during a course of schizophrenia, mood disorder, etc
In many cases, the serial bully appears to select targets in the order of the serial bully's perception of danger of exposure of inadequacy.
The following was posted today as a prayer request to the ATS community:
Today is a VERY SPECIAL, FIRST EVER Faculty/Staff Retreat being held in McKenna Chapel in Wilmore between 8 and 4.
Faculty and staff from BOTH physical campuses are coming to worship together, be rejuvenated together, and love on one another. PLEASE, students, be praying for our leaders today. If you happen to be walking by McKenna, STOP AND PRAY! Take a walk around the building, gather a group together, do SOMETHING...just be sure to pray!
God is doing a new thing, y'all...
This on-campus retreat is a subset of the things that were presented recently at the donor/friends retreat i Colorado Springs. It was a wonderful and anointed time and I'm excited that the Advancement folks are bringing a bit of it home.
Way to God Tammy and the Gang
What's with all this bullying stuff? Interesting, but what sort of analysis is this? It really fits a handful in the Wondercats, from my observation.
I'm really puzzled how anyone sees the We Wonder professors as bullies, if that's what the implication of the comment was.
But think about it, strictly on the odds. Let's say that a significant majority of professors at a holiness institution have signed a document in favor of mediation, at least temporary reinstatement, and re-evaluation. Let's say that the faculty at this institution are really smart people. And let's say that we have reason to believe that at least most of them have good hearts.
Strictly on the odds, isn't the most likely conclusion 1) that they know enough to question whether the current course of action at least looks right, 2) that they continue, even after all this time and all the rumors, to have at least enough confidence in the president for him to continue to be president at least temporarily, and 3) that they continue to have enough question about the evaluation process, or at least the way it looks, to suggest a complete re-evaluation?
To conclude otherwise requires a conspiracy theory. And by their very nature, conspiracy theories are less likely to be the true scenario--the very definition of a conspiracy is that it believes that things are not as they appear, not as the current evidence presents itself.
I just don't get the logic of anyone on the outside of this looking in who glibly villianizes these people. Where's the evidence of this, given that it is not at all the most likely scenario?
I'm puzzled how anybody couldn't see the We Wonder professors as bullies.
Let's think about it, strictly on the odds. Let's say that a significant majority of the Trustees at a holiness institution have agreed on a course of action to dismiss the president. Let's say that the Trustees at this institution are really smart people. And let's say that we have reason to believe that at least most of the Trustees have good hearts.
Strictly on the odds, isn't the most likely conclusion that 1) even though they couldn't make public comments beacause of confidentiality and 2) even though people have villified them through rumors (many which probably were not ture), that they have great confidence that dismissing the president is best for the future of the seminary that they love as proven by their generous support of time, prayer, finances, and energy?
To conclude otherwise requires a conspiracy theory. And by their very nature, conspiracy theories are less likely to be the true scenario--the very definition of a conspiracy is that it believes that things are not as they appear, not as the current evidence presents itself.
I just don't get the logic of anyone on the outside of this looking in who glibly villianizes these people. Where's the evidence of this, given that it is not at all the most likely scenario?
Ah, but that's a slight change of subject. Neither the We Wonder series nor this petition have suggested that the board is incompetent to judge Greenway's president. They have primarily questioned the process that has brought the seminary to this point. And the Academic Petition suggests toward appearances, healing, and reconciliation in the whole affair.
Now this post from Peter Kerr:
"Dear Fellow Alumni (including Dr. Stone),
Dr Stone has repeatedly asserted that he thinks his colleagues are out of line, or “stampeding” instead of proceeding with due caution. I disagree with this characterization, and so I wish to explain my reasoning to you.
23 or so faculty are staking their names and reputations on the "We Wonder" questions, and I think these are all very level-headed people who have good reasons to get involved. They are clearly asking good questions that should be heard and hopefully answered by the task force.
Here are some other reasons these people seem to be concerned enough to question the task force and enter the fray…not with the hope to confront the full board, but with the plea that the board confront its own task force.
First, narratives from both sides seem to suggest the process was flawed to some extent. For details please see my earlier reasoning that a good leader doesn’t start an evaluation with negative accusations, doesn’t introduce new negative data before covering the agreed upon objectives, and should NEVER have everyone at a meeting familiar with a scathing 35 page report and then stop the evaluation after 15 minutes by handing a copy to the accused and giving him a mere hour to read it (it just LOOKS like a lynching…whether or not it WAS one is open for debate).
I expect no matter what happens the task force will have to admit they did a VERY poor job of evaluating and working with President Greenway. The faculty see these issues, and wonder why they exist. It is difficult to attribute the chain of mistakes to incompetence alone, as these men are bright and capable. This leads to speculation of other motives, and while I will not go there as most of it is guess work that may damage reputations, I will say I have received many emails guessing many different scenarios, so there is no lack of potential motive.
Second, President Greenway is silenced and it seems he is not getting a fair hearing. Whether just rumor or real, many people perceive that the task force is stacking things in its favor and not attempting to give President Greenway a fair hearing. This ranges from calling board members behind the scenes to shore up support to removing President Greenway's ability to communicate with the campus and even leaking erroneous details of severance package negotiations.
Various sources have also confirmed that an investigative committee has been appointed as per the by-laws to investigate reasons for dismissing President Greenway (or failing to uncover evidence, presumably it could also recommend he stay). I am pretty sure the by-laws stipulate two board members, a faculty member and an admin member. I wonder if these people were chosen fairly, from people who are neutrals, especially since it is the board chair who selects members of this committee. I realize it may be difficult to get a neutral from a faculty of which 80% voted in strong support of President Greenway’s immediate reinstatement, but I would guess many neutrals remain (and I mean neutrals, not personal friends of the Board Chair like Dr Stone—no offense intended).
What concerns me more is the selection of the board members to this team. I have to wonder if the board members selected are neutrals (making it a fair investigation) or whether they are friends of the Board Chairman or somehow unduly influenced from that side. Someone even speculated that the chairman would appoint himself to this committee, which would be a glaring abuse of power and really look like "stacking the deck".
I hope the names of this team can be released so that we can all see how fair the chairman has been in his selection of this team, giving us an indication of how fair he has been in the whole process. In any case, there seems to be many thoughts that the task force is not playing fair, and so people want to give the President a fair chance to be heard. I hope we
all agree that should be a priority.
Third, I have spoken to many people who feel the exec committee had previously overstepped its bounds of oversight and entered into the President's affairs despite by-law boundaries. This naturally sets the stage for the current crisis, as it shows a history of difficulty, and if true, a history of the board chair and others being at fault (or at least bearing some of the fault) for a relationship breakdown. It also explains why the President may not have felt that he could receive constructive feedback from the task force (no one can work well with people if they do not respect governing by-laws, which are the highest governing authority at the seminary), and it hints of potential premeditation of this removal action as some people on the task force probably wished for the removal of our President a long time ago. While I am personally convinced there was some antipathy long before this event, even if the above is just a common perception it would give people cause for acting on President Greenway's behalf at this time of crisis.
There are many other good reasons to question the task force. Contrary to Dr Stone’s claims, there is no “stampede” being organized by hotheaded stallion faculty attempting a showdown with the board like some sort of bad western film. The board is duly respected by all, and these members of faculty are FAR from impulsive people. There is a very common sentiment that members of the task force have not acted in a manner that best supports the seminary, and thus they should be questioned to see if they can clear up the perception of their actions or at least take responsibility and learn from past mistakes instead of covering them up with an unfair process and directing blame at the President as well as attempting to undermine any who sided with the President (both other board members and simpletons independents like myself).
I hope that either the exec committee has some real good reasons and evidence for dismissing President Greenway and causing this leadership impasse (which it has not to-date shared), or that the board acknowledges the exec committee’s mistakes and takes appropriate action to restore President Greenway and place more capable leaders on the exec committee.
Sincerely,
Peter A. Kerr"
Friends, I have some advice. The first is the advice from a good friend on how we should use events like this as a time for our own growing:
The advice is part of a devotion entitled: "When Good Intentions Go Wrong…Allow God to Shape Your Character".
The devotion begins by talking about a mission trip and some of the things the author learned. It then gets to the overall lesson here:
“One of the most difficult things we experienced was the discovery that one of the leaders we had worked with had apparently misappropriated the funds we had raised and sent for the church. That is the reason the church building was not completed, and we are still trying to work this through to a healthy resolution. It was very disheartening to see how our good intentions had gone bad. I was reminded of a truth that I learned many years ago: people will always disappoint you…but God is faithful.
One of the most difficult aspects of the trip for me was not being in charge. I normally do not have difficulty living under the authority of another leader. It is always a joy to behold a good leader work to coordinate the disparate parts of a group of people toward a common goal. That was not the case of this trip. It was led by a person I love and have known for a long time, but I had never been with this person in a leadership context. I had a hard time. In fact, my daughter and my friend said that the greatest form of entertainment on the trip was watching me NOT be in charge. They said my body language betrayed my dissonance. They laughed saying that there were times when I was almost twitching. Our leader did not have the gifts of administration or leadership. She is a cherished child of God…with a strong mercy gifting…but no ability to lead or delegate. It was painful for me to be still!
One of the most frustrating aspects of this person’s leadership effort was that she would make decisions without consultation. She would announce, “I have made a unilateral decision.” When questioned, she would infer that she had consulted with others…which did not happen. It was very frustrating.
Over the years, I have learned that when I become frustrated in a life circumstance, I could wring my hands in frustration and complaint…or I could fold my hands in self-examinations and prayer asking, “Lord, what are you trying to teach me through this situation?” This time, I needed to be reminded. One evening, after a particularly long and frustrating day, I had had enough. My friend and I took a walk outside, and I began to vent my frustration. He listened. Then he reminded me that sometimes leaders need to make unilateral decisions. I said that I knew that to be true. He then said, “Jeff, maybe the reason God is allowing you to experience this is to remind you of what it feels like to other people when you have to make a unilateral decision in your ministry.” Ouch. He was right. This was the learning edge for me for the rest of the trip: to remember what it is like when leadership decisions are made.
Has that ever happened to you…a good intention has gone bad? It could be life circumstances turned south. It could be the best laid plans have imploded. It could mean that you have been put into a place of dissonance. It could mean that you do not care for the leadership style of the person in authority over you. How will you respond?
Let me make a suggestion: Don’t wring your hands in despair…try folding your hands in prayer, and asking, “Lord, what would you fashion in my character in this situation?” It is my experience that the quicker we respond in this way, the quicker we learn what God would teach us in our lives. That kind of spiritual dissonance is not a bad thing…it is for our growing.”
So in the midst of this crisis, lets remember see how God is forming us. Doesn’t this sound like an excellent model for us to remember now?
Here is another story from my devotional friend. Perhaps this story could help some how the current approach is appropriate. It is about the wise method of ringing the tree.
A few years ago, my wife and I were given a gift of a horseback riding weekend at a bed and breakfast near Titusville, PA. Titusville is located in the middle of the region of Pennsylvania where ninety percent of all of the veneer quality black cherry timber in the world is found, and the wooded lots of the farm that we were riding through were filled with this cash crop. In fact, the afternoon we arrived, the owner of the farm had just cut down and dragged out a forty-foot black cherry veneer log that he said would bring about $40,000 when sold.
The work of the hardwood lumber farm intrigued me. As we were riding through the forest, I struck up a conversation with the trail guide. He was the owner’s son, who had graduated from West Virginia University with a degree in forestry. He worked for a major paper company managing their forests, but during the weekend, he helped to manage his dad’s cash crop. As we rode along, he began to share how they managed the hardwood lumber crop for maximum growth and profit.
One of the topics we talked about was crop management. The trees that would bring his family profit were “planted” decades before, but there are others trees in the forest that will sap their potential if they go unchecked. The image that came to my mind was of the small garden we had in our yard. If I did not watch over it, there were other plants that would choke it out and have a direct impact on its ability to produce food for our table.
I asked how he managed the crop in the midst of a forest where seedlings are springing up and old stand maple and oak are plentiful. At that moment, we rode into a grove of trees. In the center was a majestic maple tree. Its trunk was at least three feet in diameter, and its branches wove its way out from the trunk with the kind of character that would make it a treasured tree to have in a back yard. They were ample to hold a tree house or rope swing. It was the kind of tree that kids would love to climb in and play, and older adults would recline under in the shape. Surrounding the tree in the glen were about a dozen smaller hardwood trees…white oak, red oak, black walnut and black cherry.
He asked me which tree I thought was the most valuable. Looking at the glen through my eyes, I picked the majestic maple tree. He smiled and said that while the tree would look great in a backyard, it was only good for firewood. He then began to teach us that the real value of the forest was found in the dozen or more trees that were within thirty feet of that majestic maple. They were tall, slender, straight, and they would bring a lot of money as veneer logs used in the furniture building industry. He pointed out trees that were already worth $10,000, $20,000 and $30,000, and that they would need to manage the hardwood forest to increase their profitability in the future. However, the majestic maple was taking nutrients that would help the hardwood trees grow, and if it were to be blown over or fall over, it would cause damage to the other trees to the grove.
He than asked what I would do to manage this section of the forest. I said that the majestic maple was out of place here, sapping nutrients from the rest of the trees, and that I would cut the tree down. He smiled and said that that was too risky. What if the tree fell the wrong way and fell into one of the cash crop trees? It could be a very expensive mistake. He then said that what they would do is “ring the tree.” Ringing the tree involved cutting two rings through the bark around the base of the trunk of a tree at about one foot apart. This action cuts off the flow of nutrients from the ground, thus freeing them to feed the other trees in the grove and hastening their maturation. When you ring a tree, it begins to die slowly and drop its branches from the outside in, from the top to the bottom, all the way to the trunk. It allows the majestic maple to die a slow death without threatening the life of the newer, cash crop trees.
As we rode along from grove to grove, I saw dozens of trees that had been ringed and were in various stages of dying from the outside in. The result was that the nutrients were being freed up to feed the cash crop trees and the removal of the old, majestic maple was done without harm to them.
“Ringing the tree” is a powerful metaphor about change in the church at any level. Let me illustrate with the local church. Many pastors and other leaders see their congregation as needing change with systems, structures and styles that have served the church well in the past (like that old, majestic maple in the grove) and needing to change.
I think that the lesson of “ringing the tree” has some merit for those who are preparing for ministry in a local church. All too often, we want to cut down or uproot the majestic old “tree” in our midst, but doing so will probably cause trauma. It will damage not only the old “tree,” but the also the new “tree” that we are trying to nourish and grow.
“Ringing the tree” means that we do not cut down or uproot the old systems, structures or styles. We simply stop feeding them with the nutrients they need to continue to dominate the “grove,” and we let nature take its course. It also means that we begin to feed the new systems, structures and styles that we know will bring us the growth and life we see in the future. The old things pass away and new things come…sounds about right.
In the future when faced with the inevitability of leading your congregation through change, remember the lessons of “ringing the tree.”
I dont know how wise or fair this method is, but I suppose it would work.
uh - it sounds like the person your getting your advice from is the bully.
How about this, let's just say I'm the bully, shake hands, and we'll all go home.
I just don't think it's helpful to call anyone a bully in this situation. I think we have a lot of people with very strong wills and with a lot of power--definitely above my pay grade. I think all these people have incredible potential for God to use massively for the kingdom. But with such incredible force, they all have to be all the more careful. They could easily eat people like you and me for lunch without even realizing it.
But I don't see how the bully charge helps anything resolve or get better.
This was a post from a student, Randy Woodley. Whether he is right or not, it is another perspective:
"I believe what is happening with Jeff is a symptom of a bigger problem. There has been a crisis of leadership at Asbury for several years. Let me name some people who are no longer here (I'm sure I've missed a few) Maxie Dunham, Paul Bedour and crew, Darrell Whiteman, Stewart Palmer, Greg Leffel, and likely more. Now Jeff is possibly on his way out.
How much official information were students given on any of these situations? How much did we need? Were we as students suppossed to just watch the line of former staff and faculty slip quietly through the back doors?
What I believe this shows above all, is a terribly dysfunctional system. Communication is very poor - if it is not honest communication. I know from my purview, there has not been honest communication from the Administration to the students, et al. I see this as the bigger picture. I am reminded of how parochial the issue of the ethos statement was dealt with...
I wonder how a community can be formed when there is only partial information and cryptic answers coming forth? How does one join in this community without acquesting to its dysfunction? Do we want a more honest community? If so, where do we go from here?
To second guess each incident on hearsay is, I believe, to join in the dysfunction. So how do we participate?
One idea: I think the instititution is still operating on a 1950's model where students are seen as children and not christian partners and adult consummers. Maybe addressing this is a place to begin. If students were partners-representatives in all these areas then the information channels would be clear and no one would need to second guess the process. One thing is certain, if Administration is uneasy about the reprecussions from students because of these issues-they should look into the way they do business (and community) to find long term resolve."
Post a Comment