The State of the Question

1. The board explicitly stated that it was not immorality.

2. Fundraising seems to pop up here and there in comments from people in the know. The impression I'm getting is that Greenway himself hasn't done that well with fundraising over the last 2 years. Although I also heard that last year was a record year because of Dunnam's work.

3. I have heard the rumor that Greenway didn't communicate fully with the board. But then again I've also heard that the board chair sometimes overstepped his bounds by directing on campus affairs around Greenway too. If my chair and others were working against me, I might restrict some information to them too.

4. The rumor that it has to do with Asbury accreditation has been discounted.

5. Greenway was conservative, so it isnt' that he was liberal. And anyone who wants to use the postmodern card can't because the targets were all hired under Dunnam.

6. Personality conflict looms large as a factor. Greenway has a forthright manner that apparently irritates some of the powerful Southerners on the board.

7. Some of it may reflect residual feelings from previous conflicts. Dunnam groomed a guy named Steve Moore for the presidency and Greenway was chosen by the board instead. Then once president Greenway removed Moore's office. That probably was very irritating to them.

8. Dunnam wanted to use Asbury to reform the UM church and didn't seem to pay much attention to some of the other feeder groups here. I'm not sure Greenway sees this as the primary purpose of the seminary, although he certainly has not ignored the UM church.

9. The most important thing is that all the second hand information I've heard from those who have read the letters Jim Smith is sending to the broader board indicates that Smith has not shared any information worthy of firing to them.

This is why I believe they are focusing on insubordination--THEY DON'T HAVE ANY REAL BASIS TO FIRE HIM!