Who was the consultant?

I'm going to plod on... three more weeks... just so those who want us to tire of the subject will have to face a still fresh topic in October. Ugh!

And let me say that I am extremely irritated with Jim Smith calling the Board of Trustees so late in the game--in October just 2 days within its legal deadline. You'll have a hard time convincing me that this isn't politics. If there were any thought of restoring Greenway, they would have been called as soon as possible (which would have been within 10 days).

And of course the best course of action for the seminary would have been to call the BOT as soon as possible. Instead, we are forced to deal with the ever more pungent smell of decaying flesh at Asbury. Just think, if they had called the board immediately, the situation would already be resolved one way or another.

Good intentions on Smith's part? I'm still willing to think so. It's a smart move from his perspective. Emotions might go down if people will stop talking. Let everyone get tired of the subject to where they just want it to go away. Make the date and location secret so people can't lobby the board as effectively.

But that doesn't mean it was the right decision or that we have to like it. One way or another, when this is all done, resignandus est smithus. There's no other option apart from a miracle. The miracle would be sincere repentance from all parties--the core EC, Greenway, the faculty, [me], everyone--with an astounding reconciliation. And since I believe in free will, God's not going to force anyone to do these things. And I have moved far from optimistic for anyone to budge.

______________
So let me now begin to try to answer some of my interpretive questions that resulted from my detailed observation of Dan Johnson's public comments. Here is a definitional question, "Who was the consultant?" A rational question might be, "Why did Smith ask him to be the consultant?" Here's another one, a modal one, "How has the consultant actually functioned throughout this process?" And of course I would remiss if I didn't add further, "Implications?"

1. Evidence:
One website says this: He is "president of [insert organization], requested on Friday, April 29, 2005 that the board of directors initiate the process of finding his successor. He will have served as president of [it] for twelve years at the effective date of his retirement, June 30, 2006."

Inference:
This is a very competent guy with lots of experience. My earlier questions suggested that he comes high recommended. Indeed! This is an impressive guy. I was particularly impressed by one quote on that webpage by him: ""When I turned 60, I adopted the motto 'peak at 80' and so I look forward to many adventures ahead, probably staying close to my passion of helping CEOs and boards achieve worthy goals."

2. Evidence:
Johnson's public comment on the consultant went like this: "the full board had approved the use of a task force and understood it was the chairman’s role to conduct the process. Dr. Smith again invited [him] to assist, this time wanting what has become popular in many organizations, the so-called "360 degree" evaluation."

Further, "Dr. Smith provided twelve names to [him] and asked him to conduct phone interviews with those people, some of whom were suggested by Dr. Greenway and some by task force members." The questions were "five open-ended questions given to those selected to be in the 360: (1) How would you describe President Greenway’s leadership? (2) What specific advancements in the Seminary’s life (list of all areas) would attribute primarily to President Greenway’s leadership? (3) How would you describe President Greenway’s relationships with the following groups with which you are familiar (faculty, staff, students, trustees, alumni, donors, friends of the seminary)? (4) In what areas of presidential leadership would you hope that President Greenway could improve? (5) Additional comments?"

However, according to Johnson's statement: "The three recommendations in the fall of 2005 asked Dr. Greenway to work with an executive coach to help him in his first presidency in academia; to work with a professional consultant in fund-raising, a major role of the president

Inference:
Smith was apparently not using the consultant for the purposes directed by the board. He was using him for other purposes. Perhaps this is fully within his right as chair. We note, however, that he is not said here to work with the president at all or to be hired for such. Yet this was the purpose sanctioned by the board. None of the questions in the 360 have anything to do with tasks for which the BOT authorized a consultant, like fund raising, for example.

3. Rumor
The consultant did not support Greenway as the preferred candidate when he was being considered for the presidency.

Inference:
I don't know if this is true. Peter Kerr's piece insinuated something like this, but Johnson has flatly denied that he knew Steve Moore at that time. We should note, however, that if he in fact did not think Greenway or someone like Greenway was the best candidate previously, it raises questions about Smith hiring him.

4. Rumor
I relayed a rumor when I asked this question: "Is it true that the consultant indicated that, in his opinion, the Greenway Presidency had about a 2% chance of success?"

Inference:
If that's true, then we could understand why the task force would think that Greenway's demise was imminent. They haven't admitted this, hiding behind the insubordination charge. But (this is the exploding universe point) it seems well nigh impossible to deny that they were well on a course for Greenway's resignation before he first entered the room on October 31. I believe we have good reason to think this of Smith well before October 30. But I think the bulk of the task force was on board when they saw the consultant's results that night.

By the way, we have no reason to think that the consultant does not sincerely believe Greenway to be a disaster for Asbury. Similarly, we have no reason to think that Smith does not genuinely believe that Greenway is a disaster for Asbury. My goal in this post is not to malign the consultant--or to malign Smith. It is to raise the strong possibility that the process might not have been a Spock-like exercise in objectivity. The data was no doubt true for what it was. It just may not have been a fair respresentation of the whole community.

Why deny at least some of this? You don't have to share the details. Just stop hiding behind the insubordination thing as the main issue here or the efficient cause of this thing. WE DON'T BELIEVE YOU! The insubordination charge may sink Greenway, but this procedure should sink at least Smith. Clean our palettes of this foul taste!

5. Evidence
Johnson describes the 360 process in the following terms: "chairman Smith invited Dr. Greenway and members of the task force for names of administrators, faculty, staff, students and others. An equal number from Dr. Greenway and from task force members were selected to provide confidential written input. Not all suggested were included, of course, so no one would be sure who was involved. Dr. Smith provided twelve names to [him] and asked him to conduct phone interviews with those people, some of whom were suggested by Dr. Greenway and some by task force members... The task force reviewed a summary of trustee and non-trustee written feedback prepared by Dr. Smith, essentially a cut and paste from the responses. We also had a six-page written summary of [his] phone interviews (which averaged 45 minutes each)."

Inferences:
I don't necessarily object to this procedure as qualitative research. It is not quantitative research that would constitute hard data. Open ended questions with such an easily polarized result only suggest avenues for further study. As even Johnson suggests, the results are subject to multiple interpretations.

Yet the universe will surely explode if what Jim Holsinger didn't share with Greenway had something to do with his doom, that betrayal the rest of the task force felt when he left the room with Greenway. The data, by its very nature, could not have suggested such a conclusion on any sure basis. Maybe the task force knew other things. But this data, by its very qualitative, potentially polarizing, and open ended nature, could only have suggested more rigorous quantitative study.

6. Rumor from outside Asbury:
I want to be very careful here. This rumor is based on two specific comments that may not be validly generalized. But one might infer that some consultants are willing to help others get around "the system," presumably in relation to causes in which he believes of course. We're just wondering if he's a good friend to have when you want to be "wise as a serpent, harmless as a dove." I offer this as a rumor I believe. I offer no evidence, so you can completely reject it as pure speculation. I will not tell you the specifics of where I heard this one, but I believe it.

Inference:
He might have had skills at helping a group of 4 people convinced they had the wrong president to conduct a 360 in such a way that it looked maximally bad for the target person. Again, these can be valuable skills for the kingdom--I'm glad some Christians have them. I think the book of Acts tries to make the early Christians look maximally good.

Conclusion:
I hope I never have this consultant for an enemy and that none of my enemies have enough money to hire him.

We end this post with a quote from Oscar Wilde that I have made the motto of my blog at least until October 17: "The truth is never pure and rarely simple."

Jumpin' Jim Smith, Dirty Dan in the "Not OK" Corral

This is a response to an anonymously pro-core EC comment on my previous post (I should point out that the actual EC is a 14 member board and that this situation started with a core of 4). As a disclaimer, I don't necessarily think "Dan" is dirty. He seemed like a nice guy on the phone. I have said throughout that I do not even know whether Greenway is a good president or not. Clearly this core of the EC thinks he is "not OK," and the broader EC voted 12-2 to put him on leave.

My goal here is to flush out the truth in a war of power. To force as much as I can the open discussion of facts, events, and interpretations. As someone who is at the point where he can take or leave his association with Asbury, I am in a unique position to arbitrate these issues. My real goal is thus not to malign Jim Smith, Dan Johnson, or the other 2 alleged anti-Green individuals, whom I have always given the benefit of the doubt in terms of working for what they think is the good of the seminary.

My goal is to use the power of the internet to bring a balance of power, to give voice and rhetoric to those disempowered in the nitty gritty world of Asbury politics. Currently the 4 in the "Not OK Corral" seem to hold all the political cards that really matter. Only donors and constituencies hold substantial counter-cards to which they are accountable.

The goal is truth. I will eat my words with pleasure if it proves that I have not been aiding the truth.

My response to the anonymous comment:
____________________________
Thanks for posting the other side, anonymous pro EC. I wholeheartedly welcome them because I am interested in the truth, not in a pre-favored side. If I have misled, I sincerely want to eat my words in the name of truth. By all means, everyone post no matter your side!!!

I read Lawson's posts and have in fact mentioned him a few times here. I think it is clear that Lawson is one of the minority of professors who tend to side with the "Not OK 4." Or at least he is trying to bring balance to the picture. We remember that 16% of the faculty did not support the immediate reinstatement of Greenway and we can imagine that Lawson was one of them.

Lawson is a great guy. He taught me Hebrew and taught one of the most memorable classes I had at ATS (Dave Smith was in it too!). It was a read through Isaiah 1-12 in Hebrew. It was excruciatingly hard and delightful at the same time, a kind of early foray of mine into intellectual sado-masochism.

Yet Lawson's personality is not one to be involved in administration central. He is a genius who I suspect would just as well be playing his guitar at a night club as engaging in school politics. He is awesome. I wonder if his posts are in part defending his friends (including Jim Smith, the Chair).

But, his place in the food chain puts him in a much less informed position than other high administratively connected faculty who have found Peter Kerr's sequence of events to be generally accurate. Lawson actually does not question the "event" accuracy so much as the interpretation.

So as I commented to a fellow faculty member here at IWU about the basic claim that the EC had it in for Greenway (rightly or wrongly) well before his failure to return, "I just can't see any other conclusion... if I'm wrong then logic isn't real and the entire universe will explode." The fellow prof agreed with my logic, but stopped short of universe explosions.

But I can tell you this about little ol' Schenck Thoughts. There's no way I would teach at Asbury with the current EC core. I had a delightful email conversation with Lawson the other evening in which I wrote him that I could see in this crisis the end of my association with Asbury. I will continue to recommend the faculty of Asbury as top notch, but I wouldn't recommend anyone to teach there, if the current EC remains in charge.

I am a significant representative of the Wesleyan Church in relation to Asbury. I do not know what our two representatives to the board will vote and I have not contacted them. But I do not know a single IWU professor or Wesleyan anywhere with a positive view of the EC core right now. And I know people (so you can imagine the Alumni Coffee House is far from the only place I am hearing things).

That is something the broader board should consider. We might seem insignificant to those whose main goal for Asbury is to use it to reform the UM church. But in the real world, IWU is the largest single feeder of students to Asbury (not just Wesleyan, but we have a sizeable UM clientele), and the Wesleyan Church is a major student contributor on the whole.

Beyond that I heard that a local UM pastor here told a freshman UM student here that he might not necessarily think of Asbury, because it's UM accreditation might be in question. Asbury already has a bad reputation among so many UMers. This crisis is just adding fuel to the fire. And I've had online students this semester question whether their degree will be worth anything. Of course I think these are not realities either. The board will settle this in October and life will go on one way or another. But you can see the effect this crisis is having.

So Greenway may go, but here's a warning to the broader board from its constituencies, among which lil' ol' Schenck Thoughts must be considered a major representative. Maybe Greenway needs to go. But if so--if there is no reconciliation by them or some yet to appear elder statesman/woman--then you'd better boot Jumpin' Jim Smith and Dirty Dan Johnson as well just to hit the reset button and clean our mouths from this bad taste. Otherwise the stench of this crisis will linger and you just might lose a hefty part of your constituency.

Who is the Board of Trustees responsible to? Us, the alumni and feeder schools. That makes people like me Jim Smith's boss.

Jim Smith, Dan Johnson, Jim Smith, Dan Johnson, Jim Smith, Dan Johnson... The other two (names, please, anyone?).

What are you doing, Ken? People target the names they know. Everyone knows Greenway's name, so he's the easy target regardless. They should equally know these names so that any pruning is done on the basis of facts, not on the basis of what names are known by the public. [Ask Lawson which of the three Abraham/Isaac, Sarah/Rebecca, Pharaoh/Abimelech stories, from a form critical perspective, is most likely to be historically "true." The answer is the least famous set of names--Isaac/Rebekah/Abimelech. :-) Traditions gravitate toward the better known names.]

I still believe that Jim Smith and the other 3 on the EC in the "Not OK" Corral think they are doing the seminary a service. I had a very friendly conversation with Dr. Johnson and no doubt would enjoy his friendship under different circumstances. If I didn't think it was important for someone to work for a fair process and for the interests of those I represent I wouldn't try to hammer them. In fact, I don't think I have hammered them too much thus far.

But let's get their names out in the open so that they also are part of the mix, out where everyone can fairly evaluate their actions. Who knows, maybe they will be partially vindicated? Maybe the universe will explode as they are completely vindicated? But their names should be on the line with Greenway's.

May the Holy Spirit give discernment to any who would read this post! I want the truth. As far as I know, I am not hateful in spirit toward these individuals. My conscience is clear. But I don't think the truth will out unless someone stirs the pot. This post is my attempt to do some stirring!

Come out and testify to opposing council, ye who lurk here!

Guest Post: Anonymous Faculty Member?

I thought this anonymous comment was significant:
____________
Anonymous said...

(1) The Faculty of ATS took no vote regarding whether to send the resolution to the Exec Comm.

(2) The chair of the board asked to address the faculty, but did not invite faculty to address the exec comm. That anyone on the exec comm would compare the faculty's holding its own session with the exec comm's total disregard of the faculty demonstrates a basic and almost incomprehensible lack of understanding of the doctrine of "shared governance" that defines the seminary (for accreditation-related policies, see www.ats.edu).

(3) I have heard repeatedly that we have a north-south problem at Asbury Seminary, where I serve on the faculty. This is not quite true, I think. We do have a cultural problem, but it is not determined by the Mason-Dixon line. Rather, it is expressed in a president who speaks forthrightly and directly versus a number of southerners on the board leadership who speak and act in less direct ways. They think President Greenway is autocratic because they are unaccustomed to having a leader simply tell them what s/he thinks!

(4)Here is what I believe should be especially worrisome to anyone concerned about the longterm health of Asbury Seminary: If (as I have come to believe) some members of the board have been orchestrating a coup for some time, then Asbury has a much bigger problem than simply how to address the present crisis over President Greenway. If (as we are told to believe) no one on the board has been orchestrating a coup, then it is a serious matter that trust has eroded to such a degree that many of us, a majority of us, have reached a place where we do not trust the board leadership and are ready to believe a false account of these events. Either way, the troubles are deep and systemic. Either way, the need for genuinely spiritual leadership by the majority of the board could hardly be more acute. We are praying that the board as a whole will seek justice and exercise wisdom.

(5) Why do I refuse to sign my own post? It is because we have been threatened against making negative comments about the board, about members of the board, or about this whole process. Tenured and non-tenured faculty alike have been running for cover.

Who Decides, Self Published with Lulu

On the lighter side of life, I have gone ahead and self-published a book tonight that I wrote a couple years ago that never found a publisher: Who Decides What the Bible Means?

I ordered a copy of a draft, received it, then revised it appropriately. I think I've worked the kinks out of this second version, but I haven't actually ordered a copy of it myself yet to be 100% sure. I'll do that soon and report back.

But anyway, I decided to go ahead and make it available to anyone. Up till now I've had it so only I could buy copies.

Check it out at http://www.lulu.com/content/390078

It's $9.99 but, watch out, they slap almost 10 dollars of shipping on the thing! I've only made it available through Lulu at this time, so it doesn't have an ISBN at this point. Welcome to the new face of publishing!

On the Lighter Side

On the whole, this has been a discouraging week to me. Not least to note in this category is the Asbury situation. I am retroactively posting this entry, but if you look at the entry posted right after this one in sequence, you will find the thoughts of a faculty member at Asbury. My intuitions are with him or her as to what is really going on there.

But there were a couple of bright spots. One fun one, a student from an intermediate Latin class I "taught" at Asbury College in 1993 found me on the web, Jerald Walz. How he remembered my name I don't know. He's now working in DC at an institute (I think) relating to Religion and Politics. That was the year I was finishing up an MA in classics at the University of Kentucky while living in Wilmore. Fun!

The biggest bright spot was finding out what I have long suspected, namely, that my family background is Dutch. Most will know the embarrassing pronunciation of my last name Schenck ("skank"). I have long thought its weirdness probably belied a Dutch background rather than a German one (which would say "shank").

My cousin Tim has verified it. The answer came from a 1930 census, the year my great grandfather died of a burst appendix in St. Joseph's hospital in Kokomo (he himself lived in the country outside Frankfort and is buried in the cemetery of New Hope UM Church in the country there). We had never been able to figure out who his father was or where in the world he came from.

The census lists his father's birthplace as Holland and his mother's as Pennsylvania. Alas, my father's side is Dutch and my great-great grandfather must surely have arrived in this country from Holland in the 1860's or so (my great grandfather was born in 1871). Maybe he came to watch the Civil War?

Yeah!

Guest Post: Drury's Stages of a Church Fight

Stages of a Church Fight
Church fights escalate. They start small, but eventually can get whipped into a gigantic and destructive inferno. Sometimes the blaze starts as a fuss between two members. More recently it starts as a difference between a member and the pastor. Like a divorce, it can start with a little spark, but it eventually turns wild and destructive consuming everything in its path. A local church holocaust. What are the stages?

Stage one: Explain
At the lowest stage the member disagrees with the pastor and assumes the pastor doesn't understand. The member goes to explain how he or she feels or believes. Or maybe to explain the history here at this church so the pastor can understand and change. Explaining will resolve the difference. At this stage the member will talk to the pastor or write a letter if the pastor is approachable. If not, they will often telegraph their feelings through someone else.

Stage two: Persuade
But explanation sometimes fails to change things. If it does, the member realizes the pastor is not just misinformed, but is apparently just simply wrong. There is a difference of opinion. So the member switches from explanation to persuasion. So does the pastor, launching a training program, promoting a book supporting their position, or hauling off their members to a conference that will support the pastor's stance. If the member feels their mind is equal with the pastor's, an argument may ensue as both try to persuade the other. If the member feels ill equipped to go up against the pastor, they will likely give the pastor a book or article supporting their position. The pastor is trying to persuade the member and the member is trying to persuade the pastor. Resolution is still possible through persuasion and compromise.

Stage three: Win
Sometimes persuasion fails. Often. When a member fails to persuade the pastor or visa versa the member turns inward at first. Am I wrong? Am I alone? If they are indeed alone, they will often drop their case and shut up or switch churches. They are seldom alone. When others agree it turns into a plural tense fight. The conflict rises to stage three. There's a group who has a beef against the pastor. Before long there will be two groups. A second group will rise to defend the pastor, pitting themselves against the first group. There will be "sides" in the quarrel. Factions. Each side will guard what they say to the "other" side. People with no opinions on the original issue will soon be drawn into the fray. Division prevails. The original disagreement fades and the new goal is to WIN. Both sides want to win. The option for compromise fades rapidly.

Stage four: Remove
Like a forest fire feeding on its own heat, the conflict soon rages out of control. The pastor-opposers realize the only way they can truly win is if they get rid of the pastor. The pastor feels likewise about the opposers. The members work for removal -- through the elective process, or (easier) by working behind the scenes to make life so miserable the pastor will resign anyway. This stage may take a year, it is exceedingly messy, and seldom gets resolved without outside intervention. The pastor's supporters are pushed from arguing the original issue to simply defending the pastor, which gets harder to do as people start leaving the church, disgusted with the whole mess. Some of the pastor's supporters waver, admitting that the only way to get peace may be with a fresh start and a fresh pastor. Even now the pastor can escape with hide intact. But not for long.

Stage five: Ruin
If resignation or removal does not happen properly, the conflagration rises to a stage five forest fire. The pastor's enemies are no longer satisfied with getting the pastor out -- they want to ruin the pastor. Stage five fighters are fanatics. The fight is now a jihad. The local church becomes Belfast or Palestine. The pastor at this stage is not just kicked out the door -- he or she is shot in the back while fleeing. What a forest fire a little spark can ignite! What are the lessons in all of this? If you were teaching ministerial students as I do, what advice would you give to help them avoid getting burned in a fire like this?

By Keith Drury, 1997. You are free to transmit, duplicate or distribute this article for non-profit use without permission.

Friendly Conversation with Dr. Dan Johnson

I had a friendly conversation on the phone this afternoon with Dr. Dan Johnson, the Vice Chairman of the Asbury Seminary board. I believe he is handling a good deal of the communications between concerned individuals and the board. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to provide much commentary on our conversation, so I will be brief and try to stick as close to the facts as possible. He didn't think there was anything confidential in our conversation, and of course it ranged beyond the immediate concern to personal matters of where I was located, where I had studied, and so forth.

The contact with Dr. Johnson originated from an email from him late last night in which he offered to call me today at a time of my convenience. Then we chatted this afternoon.

Let me begin by copying my most recent post to the Alumni Coffee House, for Dr. Johnson didn't seem to have the details of the earlier list of questions on the tip of his mind. It was the following most recent comment, which I had sent to him, that seemed freshest on his mind. The impression I received was that he is quite busy responding to numerous concerned individuals, of which I would only be one.

My most recent comment: for anyone who might wonder where I am coming from in my posts, I am simply wanting any evaluation of President Greenway to take place fairly and openly. I am praying that the key members of the Executive Board will be straightforward with what seems to be to be the plain implication of all these unfolding events: they believe Greenway to be detrimental to the future of the seminary and have been doing that which is within their power to work to that end. Such motives are not evil, but with the ensuing events, to hide or distract from these ends becomes increasingly problematic and, eventually, unethical.

A simple acknowledgement would allow us to move beyond peripheral issues (like insubordination or consultants) so that the real issue can be addressed by a fair evaluation process before the entire board with input from the whole community, including those who are supposed to share in the governance of the institution.

It just seems so simple to me! What in the world am I missing here?

Back to the phone conversation: As best I recall, Dr. Johnson had two basic thoughts on my email:

1. First, he did not believe that the matter of insubordination was insignificant. As I recall, when I later asked in so many words if this provided a "convenient" way to enact prior goals of the task force, he did not like the word convenient. To me he seemed willing to conjecture that it might have confirmed prior impressions about Greenway. I don't remember the precise wording, but I am trying my best to represent the gist accurately.

2. He reiterated (I believe he or some board statement made this comment before) that it wasn't appropriate to reveal task force discussion of Greenway's evaluation. As I recall, he compared the situation to the goings on of a ministerial board interviewing candidates. Such inner dialog cannot be made public.

I agreed for the most part but wondered if at least some forthrightness about the task force's leanings prior to when President Greenway did not return might be beneficial. He indicated that he was only 1 person and couldn't speak for the board. He did mention that the vote of the executive board to put Greenway on leave gave an expression of its will (after the crisis began)--this last comment only having to do with the question of the public knowing the will of the EC.

That's the conversation as I remember it. All other things aside, I respect the fact that he would initiate conversation with me. This was I think the right thing for a person in his position to do (to put out fires, as Drury has said), and I can only imagine that he is doing a lot of it.

Pray for the peace of Asbury...

The Right Questions for Asbury's Exec. Board

Drury has suggested that one way Greenway might come out of this mess is if he comes forward with a positive vision for the future. Part of the strategy here is to give the Executive Board a way to "save face" so that they don't feel like Greenway has to fry for their honor to be intact. At the same time, he admits that this is a long shot.

I think that the situation is way too far gone for this now. From all appearances, this sequence of events was in motion long before Greenway came to any meeting

So I personally see only one way for Greenway to survive, and that is if the broader board does not go along with the 4 on the executive committee who want Greenway out. Fortunate for Greenway, it would appear that the facts actually vindicate Greenway on each point, first, that the evaluation conducted was vastly skewed and inaccurate and, second, that the Exec. committee did not have the authority to place Greenway on a leave of absence.

No doubt the 4 on the executive committee think they are working for the good of the seminary. I bear them no ill will personally. But they do appear to be ignoring the will of the majority, including faculty, administration, students, and alumni. What the rest of the board thinks, I do not know. The board is of course the entity with the power and the group that must decide what will happen. I think we all have confidence that the broader board will do what it thinks is in the best interest of the seminary.

But I think, bottom line, someone has to lose. That's just the way it is. Either one or more on this executive committee will lose or Greenway will. One or the other will be sacrificed.

The following is a list of questions that I do not ask completely off the top of my head. In other words, they are questions I ask from an informed standpoint. I present them interspersed with the statements of the Vice Chairman:

Johnson: I know the confusion, sadness and frustration that many carry regarding all the speculations about the future of Dr. Greenway and the leadership of the board of trustees. I also know of your hunger for more information. Many emails and reports from campus reflect a tremendous amount of misinformation, as well as many differences of opinion on the same set of facts. Our board chairman, Dr. Jim Smith, asked me last week to help him by focusing on critical communications needs. You should know that all of the board officers have reviewed this and feel that it is time to give you as full a report as we are able.

Question: Could you identify the board officers who reviewed this statement?

Johnson: 4. What was different about the 2006 evaluation process?
Again, the full board had approved the use of a task force and understood it was the chairman’s role to conduct the process. Dr. Smith again invited Dr. Andringa to assist, this time wanting what has become popular in many organizations, the so-called "360 degree" evaluation. The same task force of officers, two past chairs, and the addition of the trusteeship committee chair, was called to Asbury for the review of documents and dialogue with Dr. Greenway on August 30-31, in time to make its report to the executive committee on September 5 at its regular fall meeting. To gather names for a pool from which a reasonable variety of people would be asked for their input, chairman Smith invited Dr. Greenway and members of the task force for names of administrators, faculty, staff, students and others. An equal number from Dr. Greenway and from task force members were selected to provide confidential written input. Not all suggested were included, of course, so no one would be sure who was involved. Dr. Smith provided twelve names to Dr. Andringa and asked him to conduct phone interviews with those people, some of whom were suggested by Dr. Greenway and some by task force members. We knew that there are hundreds of different software packages, forms, articles and philosophies about 360 evaluations, but the chairman chose a rather basic approach.

Questions: At what meeting did the Board of Trustees explicitly approve this process and appoint this task force? Why would we expect to get statistically significant and accurate information from folks chosen by the chair and the president? Why were random sampling methods not used? Even the basic qualitative methods taught in ATS’s DMin program were not followed in this evaluation of our President. Why did the chair get to name the 12 persons actually interviewed? How was reliability ensured and manipulation of data avoided? It is surprising that the board chair employed a consultant who disregarded common survey procedures. It is even more disturbing given the consultant’s eminent reputation. Given the stakes and in the name of basic fairness, why was a more statistically valid, random sample not employed? Would it be appropriate now to correct this oversight?

Johnson: 6. What were the recommendations, goals and priorities on which Dr. Greenway was to be evaluated?
The three recommendations in the fall of 2005 asked Dr. Greenway to work with an executive coach to help him in his first presidency in academia; to work with a professional consultant in fund-raising, a major role of the president; and to provide a way for employees to express their concerns in a way that would not be threatening, with our suggestion of using an outside, web-based survey used by many Christian universities called Best Christian Workplaces.
The goals and priorities had to do with Dr. Greenway’s use of time in fund-raising; his leadership in building relationships with the board of trustees; encouragement to develop a leadership style that encourages others without being autocratic; encouragement to provide leadership in all matters relating to the recruitment and hiring of new faculty; leadership in strategic planning; lead the seminary in the emphasis on "head and heart going hand in hand"; support the leadership of the Chancellor in the Marketplace Leadership Initiative for laity; and encouragement to put a priority on his personal and family life.

Question: Since policy mandates that the agreed to objectives are the only basis for evaluation, were these objectives satisfactorily met?

Johnson: 7. What were people asked in the 360 portion of the evaluation?
There were five open-ended questions given to those selected to be in the 360: (1) How would you describe President Greenway’s leadership? (2) What specific advancements in the Seminary’s life (list of all areas) would attribute primarily to President Greenway’s leadership? (3) How would you describe President Greenway’s relationships with the following groups with which you are familiar (faculty, staff, students, trustees, alumni, donors, friends of the seminary)? (4) In what areas of presidential leadership would you hope that President Greenway could improve? (5) Additional comments?

Questions: Why are these particular questions the right ones? Why are they so unrelated to the seven objectives that were to the policy-mandated basis for evaluation? On 2 above, the more President Greenway succeeds in fostering a team environment, the more transparent will be his leadership. On 4, why no corresponding question regarding strengths? Already, half the questions seem of doubtful value.

Johnson: 8. What were the responses?
Naturally, we want to honor confidentiality and it would not be fair to Dr. Greenway nor serve the purpose of this open memo to go into details. But you can be sure that there were two very different views of Dr. Greenway’s leadership that emerged. With such open-ended questions for those in the process, and fairly subjective recommendations and priorities for this year addressed in Dr. Greenway’s self-evaluation, there was room for different conclusions. The task force reviewed a summary of trustee and non-trustee written feedback prepared by Dr. Smith, essentially a cut and paste from the responses. We also had a six-page written summary of Dr. Andringa’s phone interviews (which averaged 45 minutes each). What remained to be done was the anticipated lengthy conversation with Dr. Greenway about last year’s report, his self-evaluation, the 360 inputs, and his thoughts on priorities for the coming year.

Questions: A "cut and paste" summary seems a very haphazard way of dealing with something so significant. What if another person were charged to do the "cut and paste"? Might this not give a very different view of things? Further, if we are going to make career decisions of this significance, would we not want to be sure our statistically insignificant sample were accurate? The point here is remarkably important. We have a consultant conducting a survey that fails to meet standards for producing a trustworthy result that ATS requires of DMin students. Minimally, when the results came back from an anecdotal survey indicating concerns, it seems any reasonable person would say, "Hmmm, given the nature of these findings and the seriousness of the decisions to be made, we’d better be sure about this. Let’s do a more thorough survey." Further, once the faculty vote of support was in, would it not further suggest that the survey was indeed in error?

Johnson: 9. What did this year’s task force finally recommend?
The task force had Dr. Greenway’s self-evaluation and the summaries of the 360 evaluations. The critical piece of lengthy dialogue with Dr. Greenway did not happen, so the task force was not able to complete its work and develop recommendations or priorities for the year ahead. August 31 started the beginning of the total breakdown in communications between the president and trustees.

Questions: Was there a straw vote taken by the chair appointed task force on the evening of August 30 that indicated President Greenway’s presidency was in jeopardy? Your tone suggests that the goal of the meeting for Thursday morning was to set objectives for the next year. However, Dr. Smith’s opening words to President Greenway were very much contrary to this tone.

Johnson: 10. So what happened to break up this process?
Very briefly, because the two summaries of the external evaluation responses were 30+ pages, the task force agreed on the night of August 30 that it was only fair to Dr. Greenway to give him a chance to read them the next morning before the planned discussion. Soon after 8:00 AM Dr. Greenway joined the task force, heard our rationale for inviting him to return to his office for an hour or more to review what the task force received the night before, and then return for the dialogue. As he left the room, one member of the task force left with him, to the great surprise and concern of the rest of us. A few minutes later we asked that person to return and expressed our deep sense that he violated the process. Later he asked for our forgiveness, which we granted. Evidently this trustee signaled enough of the task force members’ concerns to Dr. Greenway that he opted to call his wife, later leave his office, and through two voice mails indicated that he intended to resign and would not meet with the task force or the chairman. You can imagine our shock. We spent from about 9:00 AM to 2:30 PM trying to figure out a way to gain conversation so our task could be completed. Dr. Greenway understandably was in a very emotional state (as he acknowledged in apologizing later for certain demands that we felt to be exorbitant). The conversation among task force members naturally turned to questions such as "What do we do if he does resign?" "How do we interpret his refusal to meet with us?" and "What happens when we can’t finish our task of completing the evaluation for the executive committee next week?" We reviewed our bylaws again, asked the trustee closest to him to try to persuade him to return, and sought other counsel by phone. It was their recommendation to call a special meeting of the executive committee and place Dr. Greenway on leave.

Questions and Comments:
Given your comments about the concerns of the chair appointed task force, why would the task force be shocked? Consider:

1. As you observe, this unnamed member of the chair appointed task force "signaled enough of the task force members’ concerns to [President] Greenway." If these concerns were communicated, President Greenway’s response should hardly be surprising. Further, why, for the sake of the process, would you not want President Greenway to know "the task force member’s concerns"?

2. Moreover, did you indicate that President Greenway should cancel his morning preaching in chapel (only a couple of hours away) and that he should cancel other presidential meetings he had planned?

3. Likewise, did Dr. Smith originally indicate that President Greenway should look over the ad hoc task force’s report for "a few minutes or so"? And, was not an hour finally granted when President Greenway indicated surprise at the content of the report as it was being outlined to him?

4. Is it true that the consultant indicated that, in his opinion, the Greenway Presidency had about a 2% chance of success?

5. Was there any reason for President Greenway to expect such a negative review? Would not any reasonable person think he would be given more than an hour or so to read and reflect on his response? Would not a reasonable process grant at least a day to allow the contents of the review to be digested and a response prepared?

6. Did President Greenway indicate that he simply wanted to resign? Or, did he indicate that if he were being given the choice between firing and resignation, he’d prefer resignation?

7. At any time during the process, did anyone indicate to President Greenway that his resignation was not being sought and that the intent of the meeting was to work on objectives and actions for President Greenway to undertake for the coming year? In other words, if the communication to President Greenway that he was expected to resign was in error, did anyone undertake to correct this error?

8. Given you notice of President Greenway’s understandably emotional state, would not the appropriate response to President Greenway’s reluctance to meet be a recognition of that understandable set of feelings and, then to offer a 24 hour period for him to review the documents?

9. According to Board of Trustee policy, only the BOT as a whole has authority to direct President Greenway. How, then, could the chair appointed task force initially place him on leave, instruct him not to preach, and to cancel other daily duties/meetings? In fact, how could the Exec Com do so itself? As President Greenway has recognized his own regrets in the letter noted below, will the chair appointed task force step up and own it’s own procedural mistakes and questionable leadership practices?

Johnson: 11. What happened after this task force meeting?
The chairman called a special conference call of the executive committee for September 1. All 14 trustees on the committee were on the call. As you can imagine, many trustees were in shock over this "insubordination" and Dr. Greenway’s representation to others that this was a flawed evaluation process. The executive committee decided to place Dr. Greenway on leave without presidential duties, but with continued full compensation and benefits, and anticipated a full discussion of the matter at their previously scheduled meeting on September 5.

Questions: It is helpful that the term "insubordination" is placed in square quotes, as the term cannot literally apply to the actions taken by President Greenway, as is clear from the board policies. Again, by what policy does this group have authority to place President Greenway on leave? And, if the present impasse is not based upon "insubordination," then what?

Johnson: 12. What happened next ?
Dr. Greenway did not want direct communication with the chairman or the executive committee. We worked with Dr. Andringa and others in checking out useful solutions. SACS and ATS were notified. Chairman Smith stayed on campus to meet with the leadership team, faculty, students and staff to explain why Dr. Greenway was placed on leave. Then we prayed a lot, as most on campus did.

Questions: If communication had broken down between the chair and President Greenway, why were not alternative communication channels sought? Especially, since this specific process was not approved by the BOT? Why was a mediating path not taken? This is especially disturbing since President Greenway himself urged third-party mediation.

Johnson: 13. What happened at the executive committee meeting on September 5?
All 14 members were there. Except for attending the chapel, led by Dr. Kalas, the committee spent the day discussing all aspects of the situation. Since Dr. Greenway continued his stance of not meeting with the executive committee, we had to assume his earlier statements about resigning were still in his mind. Some wanted a full board meeting called. We agreed that Dr. Greenway had sought information on what severance agreement might be acceptable, so approved a very generous multi-dimensional package should he make that decision by noon, Friday, September 8. We also passed a comprehensive resolution 12-2 continuing his leave, providing for interim leadership, etc., which was shared with the community. All of us knew we were in troubled waters, new to all of us.

Questions: Again, by what board policy does the Executive Committee have this authority? Did the EC attempt to contact President Greenway on September 5? Why was a severance package being put together at this point? And, is it true that resignation papers were being drafted by the consultant? Perhaps most significant is the lack of any mention of resolutions passed by the faculty. Given accreditation standards regarding shared governance and given ATS’s own expressed commitment to shared governance between the BOT and the faculty, why have these resolutions been summarily ignored? And, why have the faculty’s resolutions not alerted the chair appointed task force to its erroneous conclusions regarding President Greenway’s alleged polarization of the faculty?

Johnson: 14. What has happened since September 5?
On Friday, September 8, working through his attorney, Dr. Greenway asked for an extension of the deadline until 5:00 PM Monday, September 11. The chairman asked the seminary’s attorneys to engage in the typical process of starting with Dr. Greenway’s long list of requests and trying to move toward something acceptable to all. Monday night came and the chairman decided that so long as the attorneys were talking, it was best for everyone to let that process play out. We know that among the 4300 degree-granting colleges, universities and seminaries there are at least 700 new presidencies each year. Some presidents are terminated by the board, but a more usual departure under these circumstances is a voluntary resignation, sometimes due to "irreconcilable differences with the board." Here certain differences certainly exist. Many trustees found Dr. Greenway’s behavior insubordinate and wished to proceed with termination, regardless of what the performance review showed. There were lots of opinions on the board and surely we saw or heard of many opinions from the faculty, staff and students.

Questions: Since you note the president’s use of an attorney, why do you not note the rapidity with which the board chair sought legal advice? Why is there no mention of the letter President Greenway sent that expressed regret for any misstep on his part and requesting third party mediation? Would not any reasonable person think this was an appropriate course of action given the break down in communication? Why did the chair choose to respond to President Greenway’s personal letter requesting an extension and mediation by asking the Seminary’s attorneys to contact President Greenway? On what grounds would you argue for insubordination—by what ATS bylaws and board policies?

Johnson: 16. What about the rumor some of Maxie Dunnam’s friends want him back?
A lot of trustees still admire Maxie. But he left when he wanted to and we as a board made the decision to hire Dr. Greenway. We did retain Dr. Dunnam as Chancellor, especially to focus on continuing his relationship with major donors. He has done well. Much of this year’s very good development report was due to Dr. Dunnam, some bequests, as well as to Dr. Greenway’s hard work.

Question: We missed the answer to the question you posed. Was the possibility of Dr. Dunnam returning as an interim president discussed, either formally or informally, by some members of the chair appointed task force either before, after, or during the meeting with President Greenway on August 31?

Johnson: 17. What is Dr. Greenway’s status right now?
He remains on leave without presidential responsibilities for people, programs or budgets. Soon after the executive committee continued his leave, he was communicating that he would never resign, that he felt his call to Asbury was still unfulfilled, that some trustees should resign, etc. But at the very same time, his attorney was continuing discussions for more than seven days on what the board would agree in severance benefits should he resign voluntarily. We recognize that many leaders, concerned for the welfare of their families, might choose to pursue all their options at the same time under these circumstances.

Questions: On what basis does President Greenway remain on leave? As you note toward the end, any reasonable person would have continued exploring all options, especially given the process problems identified. By the way, we understand that President Greenway was given 21 days to consider a severance offer, but that this offer was withdrawn within 2 days of its being placed on the table (some 19 days early). Can you clarify this?

Johnson: 18. What are the next steps?
While these uncertain negotiations were going on, the chairman told us that the full board would need to meet prior to our mid-November meeting, whether Dr. Greenway resigned or not. Technically, the executive committee could act for the board on accepting the terms of a resignation. But only the full board can terminate a president. The bylaws also allow any seven trustees to call for a special meeting, which must be held between 10 – 45 days from the call. That was done and a meeting will be held prior to October 23. We don’t yet know what the specific agenda will be, but to terminate a president our bylaws require the chair to appoint a special committee of two trustees, one faculty member and one administrator to meet with Dr. Greenway and to make a report to the board. This process has not yet been initiated. We continue to pray that God will open all our eyes to a better solution. Yes, time is short and our chairman, who is the board’s "manager," has some difficult decisions.

Questions: Yes, only the full board can give the president direction. So, why are we where we are? Would not a better solution be to seek mediation in order to get all concerns on the table? Since President Greenway has encouraged third-party mediation, why has this option not been given serious consideration? We seem on a course that might well leave the underlying issues in the dark. Would we not all benefit from complete transparency and an attempt to get at those underlying issues?

Johnson: 22. What should concerned faculty, staff and students do?
I understand your deep concern and the human desire to "do something." But we are a Christ-centered educational community. We have clear biblical principles about rumors, gossip, judging others, gathering good information, believing the best in others, etc. I do urge those of you prepared to lead us back to biblical principles that stand out during stressful times to do so.Of course, we need your earnest prayers. God can and will redeem this story to His glory.

Comment: Surely this is true of the entire community. We, too, call upon God to shine his light into the darkness and that all may be redeemed to His glory. We, too, seek a return to biblical principles. It seems we are strongly in agreement here, even if we might have different senses of the activities that this might lead us to. May God grant wisdom to all involved.

The Asbury Faculty Perspective

To balance Johnson's perspective, here is the resolution passed by the faculty on September 5:

_____________________________
We, the plenary faculty of Asbury Theological Seminary, meeting this day of September 5, 2006, resolve that,

Whereas,
(1) Board of Trustees’ policy clearly provides for the role and responsibility of the Faculty in Shared Governance. By definition, the Faculty is a political unit central to the governance of the institution, including faculty involvement in the removal of a president: “A member of the Administration may be removed from office by disciplinary action of the Board of Trustees…Such action shall be taken after careful investigation and recommendation by a special committee consisting of two members of the Board, a member of the Administration, and a member of the faculty, appointed by the chair of the Board of Trustees.” (Art. VII, Sect. E).

Furthermore,
there is no provision for an “Evaluation Committee” that operates separately from the Executive Committee: the By-laws state that the president is to be evaluated by the Executive Committee of the Board and the Chairs of the Board Committees annually in executive session at their Fall meeting (Art. VII, Sect. B). In addition, the By-Laws mandate a triennial review of the president’s contract. This review is to be a full and formal review. In each of the two other years, the By-Laws mandate an annual review, conducted by the Chair of the Board (VII.B).

Furthermore,
the By-laws make clear that the president does not serve at the pleasure of the Board. Neither can the president be dismissed, even for cause, without a process involving an investigative panel consisting of members of the Board, administration, and faculty. Hence, the Faculty is obligated to meet to determine its disposition vis-à-vis the current situation of its president.

Furthermore,
Board policy mandates that the Board review its president according to the goals the Board has set (Board Policies, adopted 12 May 2003, Serial Nos. 3.2, 3.4).

Whereas,
(2) in view of its confidence in the president, the Faculty is distressed and bewildered by action placing the president on indefinite leave, in violation of Board policy, and in view of Dr. Greenway’s strong desire to remain as president.

The Faculty expresses deep appreciation and full confidence in the presidency of Dr. Jeffrey E. Greenway. Although Dr. Greenway has been president of Asbury Theological Seminary for only 26 months, we have found in him a genuine concern for the spiritual and communal health of the Seminary. We have seen demonstrated a capacity to lead from the core of a life centered in Christ, with a capacity for authentic listening and consensus-building. We have discovered a commitment to involving others in shaping vision and decision-making for the Seminary. We affirm his integrity and grace in the care of employees of the Seminary, his persistent call to academic strength in the service of the mission of the church, his faithfulness and effectiveness in fulfilling the administrative responsibilities that belong to his office, and his willing and joyful involvement in the several facets of the life of the Seminary, including spiritual formation, community life, chapel and the classroom. We have found in him a capacity to develop and manage resources that enable the financial integrity of the Seminary.

Our great concern is based upon the following considerations:

In 2005, the Board gave the president seven goals, although instrumentation used to conduct a so-called 360-degree review did not focus on those goals.

Furthermore,
the judgment of the Committee regarding the disposition of the president’s contract [see below*] was not based on a failure of performance vis-à-vis documented goals. Instead, a negative valuation of his presidency was grounded in the perception of a perceived division within the Seminary community. [*At a called meeting of the Board Executive Committee on Thursday, the president was placed on leave until Tuesday’s meeting of the Executive Committee. Prior to the president’s reading the review report, the Executive Committee reported that they had received a report indicating that the ATS community (i.e., its administration, faculty, staff, and students) had been polarized on account of the president’s dictatorial and autocratic style of leadership, raising the question of the viability of his remaining in office. The president was informed that he needed to consider contacting JD Walt immediately, to explain that he would not be in chapel @ 11 that morning. Based on information the president had received prior to his reading the evaluation materials prepared by the Board Chair, it appears that he believed that he was faced with two choices: resign or be fired. It was subsequently communicated formally that the president had been placed on indefinite leave.]

Furthermore,
in accordance with By-law VII.B, the 2006 review should have been an “annual review,” but the chair of the board conducted instead a full and formal review [Note: the employment of instrumentation, interviews, and the appointment of a committee are indicative of a formal review rather than a review conducted by the chair. The only time there is to be a formal evaluation which can involve an outside consultant and the larger Seminary community is for the triennial evaluation which, in this case, should be next year, not this one since this marks the completion of his second year.].

Furthermore,
the reports to the ATS community that the president’s response was without provocation do not represent the course of events and reports outlined above. [Note: the president responded that, if these were his two choices, he would rather resign than be fired. --- And this set off the events variously reported to the Faculty, Staff, and Students on Friday.]

Furthermore,
the announced participation of the chair of the board in administrative functions (Announcement to the Community, 2 September 2006, 12:35 AM) directly contravenes Board Policy. [see Board Policies, Serial Nos. 3.0, 3.2]

Furthermore,
the faculty has no confidence in the evaluative process, for the following reasons:

1. We understand that President Greenway expected to be evaluated on seven goals set at the 2005 annual review and, therefore, this year’s process did not keep faith with expectations set by the Board a year ago.

2. There is a perceived conflict of interest with the consultant chosen for this process. It is widely known that a small faction within the Board has opposed Dr. Greenway from the beginning of his presidency in lieu of another candidate. The consultant was recommended by that candidate.

3. The design of the evaluation is unclear.

 Who were the persons chosen to participate in the evaluation? Are they truly representative of the Seminary’s various constituencies? How many persons actually participated from among all those invited?

 It is unclear how the data were analyzed. For instance how are the multiple comments to be weighted? There is no way of knowing whether a few participants made a majority of comments or whether all the comments reported are representative of the majority of the participants.

4. The conclusion of the report of widespread division among the Seminary’s constituencies over President Greenway’s leadership and concerns about his ability to lead in the future is confusing and not congruent with the faculty’s widespread support of his leadership.

Furthermore,
the detrimental impact of an abrupt interruption of leadership, occurring at the beginning of an academic year, would have long-term negative consequences for the Seminary at a time when the Seminary is experiencing a highpoint in achievements and productivity under Dr. Greenway’s leadership, and it would have devastating consequences for the president and his family, with unwarranted collateral damage to them and the Seminary.

We therefore resolve that

a. we affirm full confidence in the Presidency of Dr. Jeffrey Greenway. Vote results: 45 yes / 8 no / 3 abstentions.

b. we call for the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees immediately to restore Dr. Greenway to his full presidential responsibilities. Vote results: yes 47 / no 8 / 1 abstention.

c. we call for an emergency meeting of the full Board of Trustees to resolve this crisis within the next two weeks. Vote results: 52 yes / 3 no / 1 abstention.

d. we request that Dr. James Smith be removed from his responsibilities as chair of the Board of Trustees because of his inappropriate handling of the evaluation of President Greenway and because of the faculty’s lack of trust in his ability to resolve the profound impasse that these events have cast upon the Seminary. Vote results: 28 yes / 28 no / 1 abstention.

e. In demonstration of our commitment to these resolutions, we hereby declare that there will be no convocation for the 2006-2007 academic year until Dr. Greenway is reinstated to his presidential office. Vote results: 28 yes / 24 no / 2 abstentions.

Respectfully submitted,

The plenary faculty of Asbury Theological Seminary

(signed)
J. Steven O’Malley, faculty representative to the Board of Trustees, on behalf of the academic leadership of the Seminary (Bill T. Arnold, Provost; Leslie Andrews, Associate Provost; Hugo Magallanes, Assistant Provost—Florida Campus; and Deans of the Schools: David Bauer, Reg Johnson, Cathy Stonehouse, Ron Crandall)

The Asbury Board's Recent Statement (9-18-06)

The Vice Chairman of the Asbury Board of Trustees, Dan Johnson, posted an update today on the situation as seen from his eyes and no doubt many on the Executive Board. Perhaps wisely, he posted it on behalf of the Board chair, Jim Smith. Some of the Alumni discussion in Asbury's "Alumni Cafe" seems to see Smith as the leader of an anti-Greenway campaign. Whether this is true or not, it is wise for a different board individual to speak for the Executive Board at this time.

You will find Johnson's entire text under the comment section of my previous post "My Recommendation for Asbury." My purpose here is to do a little exegesis of Johnson's statement.
1. For outsiders like me, we encounter for the first time the name of the consultant that Peter Kerr's description saw as biased against Greenway (for the later and more objective version of Kerr's description, a description endorsed by Joel Green, Larry Wood, and Chuck Gutensen, see again the comment section of my earlier "Crossroads or Cross-ways at Asbury"). It is someone named Andringa. Kerr's first post had alleged that this individual had pushed for a different candidate during the Greenway selection process.

Note that Johnson's report does not exactly contradict this statement. It only denies that Andringa had pushed for Steve Moore, a former VP. It remains entirely plausible that Andringa did not think Greenway to be the best candidate for the job. And if this is the case, then Jim Smith's (board chair) choice of Andringa likely indicates a bias on his part against Greenway as well.

And let's be clear. It is perfectly legitimate for Jim Smith or this consultant guy to believe that Greenway is wrong for Asbury. We would not be accusing them of being evil if we concluded that they were working against Greenway. We are not operating on emotion rather than logic when we lean in this direction. We are simply making a truth claim: it is quite possible that Smith, believing Greenway to be detrimental to Asbury, stacked the deck as best he could against him in this evaluation process.

2. The process by which those interviewed was chosen appears to have followed a conflictual model. Greenway suggests references favorable to him, the task force suggests references that come to their mind. I do not know how 360 degree reviews are normally conducted, but this is of course nothing like an objective sampling. If the Task force and the President stand at opposite ends of a spectrum, the result will by its very nature end up looking polarized.

The 84% affirmation of the faculty is a good indication of the potential skew of such a process. If, for example, 2 of the final individuals interviewed were faculty, we have the strong possibility that the result would look like Greenway had 50% faculty support and 50% faculty disapproval. Of course it might also turn out to be 100% either pro or con. But none of the three possible results would be anyway near accurate. I recognize that the questions were open-ended, but the general conclusion I am making here is sound nonetheless.

I notice that there is a gap between the equal number of Greenway/Task force pool and the twelve that the consultant finally called. Of the latter twelve the report only says that some were from each group.

3. Notice that Johnson likely corroborates much of Kerr's account when he mentions the one executive committee member who "violated the process" by expressing the "task force members' concerns" to Greenway, resulting in Greenway's failure to return to the evaluation process. With this statement, we have implicit confirmation that the bulk of the executive committee believes the end of Greenway's presidency to be in the best interest of Asbury.

Are we to think that they came to this conclusion after the evaluation process or that these perspectives were present from the time of the interview selection process? The latter seems much more likely, not on the basis of emotions, but of logic and evidence.

4. Note that "many trustees" think Greenway should be terminated regardless of his evaluation for "insubordination."

So there is my interpretation of the most recent dispatch from the Executive Board. Drury had an interesting comment on the "My Recommendations" entry. The longer the wait, the worse it is likely to be for Greenway. I personally suspect that the evaluation was seriously skewed. But conducting a more objective one may not help because the individual members of the board may already have their minds made up.

As far as Wesleyan interests are concerned, I don't think a change in leadership likely bodes well for the Asbury connection with the Wesleyan Church. It's only Greenway who's paid any attention to us recently. So if the board doesn't want him, maybe they want someone who will pay attention elsewhere? At this point the sinister Drury says, "All the better... We'll start our own seminary for Wesleyans, hee, hee, hee."

My Foray into Problem Based Learning

I have tried to incorporate a problem based learning approach into my two upper level Bible classes this semester. What I have done is dream up some church crisis that relates to whatever chapter of Philippians or Galatians (two different classes) we might happen to cover on the content quiz that day, then the class breaks up into groups to solve the crisis. We are to bring in anything we know--like things from pastoral counseling classes, church leadership, Christian ed, theology, etc.

Of course since it is a Bible class, the focus is on interpreting and appropriating biblical texts in relation to a problem. I have most of the commentaries from the library on Philippians and Galatians checked out and they are at the front of the room for reference. I also encourage the students to bring their laptops and use the wireless in the building to do Google and Wikipedia searches on things like "Seventh Day Adventists" and such (see below).

Here's just a couple we have done:

1. A member of the congregation is close friends with a Seventh Day Adventist who is trying to convince her that we will not be conscious in the time between our death and our resurrection. Her friend has pointed out that Paul uses the word "sleep" in 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4. Is someone conscious when they sleep? We did this assignment on the day we took a quiz over the content of Philippians 1.

2. A women's study group is working through Galatians and is having a cat fight over what Paul says about Hagar and Sarah in Galatians 4. One woman thinks it is a prophecy about Islam, which is represented by Hagar. Another woman thinks that it means God has no more interest in Israel as a nation of Jews, that Christianity has replaced Judaism. This makes the third woman angry because she believes that the nation of Israel is a fulfillment of prophecy and a sign of the end times.

I think the classes are enjoying this approach. I cover my main objectives by quizzing and such. Then this activity is skill building without specific content objectives. And it has brought up some very central issues that you may not ever get to if you are only studying the content and original meaning:

1. What issues do we need to correct others on and when is it okay to let them be a little "heretical," if any?

2. Are all the books of the Bible at the same point in understanding? Does Paul's understanding of the afterlife develop? Does he represent the "final understanding" in the NT or does one need to go elsewhere, to Luke, for that?

3. Are some of Paul's arguments better than others? Does he make the Hagar-Sarah analogy because his opponents have raised a really good point and he's doing his best to combat it? If so, are there other arguments like this, where the situation rather than "detached, absolute truth" is driving his argument (1 Tim. 2:12?).

Of course these are issues that we leave somewhat gray because they are scary territory.

If IWU starts a seminary, I believe this way of teaching is the way to go for the bulk of the courses. In that way, these courses are highly relevant to actual ministry. I think if it was done right, such a seminary might very well revolutionize seminary education.

My Recommendation to Asbury

If you haven't heard about the "wars and rumors of wars" at Asbury, you'll find the basic points in the entry immediately beneath this one. As my thoughts have given birth to conclusions, I thought I would write an "amicus brief" to the Executive Committee, Administration, and President (Greenway) of Asbury, some friendly words from an observer.

First, to the Executive Board: President Greenway should be reinstated as President as soon as possible. I cannot imagine that they had planned to remove him from office immediately in the first place, even if they were scheming for his resignation. But I may be wrong of course. He is up for a 360 review this upcoming summer anyway. Certainly his presidency has not been so great a failure as to demand immediate dismissal and the community is very, very negative toward you right now--perhaps the broader board is too!

There is no urgency to Greenway's cessation from office and much potential harm that could come of it, including loss of accreditation. For you to persist at this point in demanding his resignation, at least in my mind, either means you are perversely stubborn (so please resign, that's poor leadership skills) or you really did have something else up your sleave (as the rumor flies).

To avoid your own castration and massive fall out from Asbury's constituencies and students, you should overlook Greenway's failure to return to his evaluation and reinstate him as soon as possible.

If you really do believe that Greenway is this great a problem for the health of Asbury, you have given him fair warning of his upcoming review next summer. But now due process can ensue. Conduct a fair and objective 360 review next summer and put it to a proper vote. If there was any political maneuvering to get him out with minimal opposition, it has failed. You'll have to do it the long way.

To Greenway, and this is actually a matter for the Executive Board as well: This would be a really hard year. It would be a year with the cloud of termination hanging in the air. The temptation as President would be to do everything in your power to eliminate the forces opposing you. If in fact there is a "Dark Pope" hiding in the ranks, the temptation would be to eliminate him/her. Part of the reinstatement deal might ensure that the President did not use his power to "kill the opposition."

Of course there is the matter of Christian attitude. If the Board and President can act throughout this process with a "Love God and love neighbor" demeanor, that is what will serve the kingdom best. And of course prayer is required without question. But let's not be so foolish as to think that this is not a matter of conflicting visions and perspectives where it is appropriate for each party to do what is within their power to do to that end. Pious language about dreamy hand holding is not what will achieve God's ends in situations like this.

It goes without question that if I were Greenway I would take this year to do everything in my power to disprove false claims about me. And if I had genuine deficiencies, I would do everything in my power to show significant progress.

Finally, to the administration: I believe that the current administration largely supports Greenway. But they also have to deal with chatty people like me and a mess of disgruntled students, alumni, and Greenway fans. They should not repeat the mistake "they" made yesterday--I don't know who "they" are... it might just have been one individual. Yesterday they removed an alumnus' post on his understanding of the situation (someone posted it anonymously as a comment on my entry below).

That's not smart. In this internet age, people are going to talk, and they are going to talk by the nanosecond. Information will get out and if you are not a part of it, it will be skewed anti-establishment. Administrations have to talk and they have to talk a lot these days. They just have to deal with unruly or vocal protests even if they are skewed. The best response is to "be all over it" in response, not to squash or remove. That just plays into conspiracy theories and empowers the "oppressed" voice.

So these are my recommendations for Asbury, whether they ever see them or not :-)

Crossroads or Cross-way at Asbury?

By now most of those who have some connection with Asbury Seminary will have heard of the recent conflict between the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees and the President, Jeff Greenway. We know the official statement of the Executive Committee--Greenway refused to return to his yearly task force review after being given materials to go away and read. Subsequently they determined him to be insubordinate to their authority over him.

At first two trustees apparently understood Greenway to indicate that he would resign, and this Executive Committee had what they considered a generous package for him if he would (pre-prepared?). But he decided not to resign by the Friday the 8th noon deadline they later set after Greenway made a public comment to the campus to the effect that he would remain on leave unless there were fundamental changes in the operation of the board. Presumably the Executive Committee now will convene the broader board with a motion to terminate his presidency.

Okay. This is one of those situations where you can tell just about everything that happened without really knowing what happened. The question on everyone's mind around Asbury is "What's that all about?" Is it simply a matter of Greenway being cross-way with something? The rumor is--and this I don't consider certain information--that he knew that they were already planning to ask him to resign when he returned. So he didn't return.

Okay. That makes sense, but why would they want him to resign in the first place? From what I hear, the seminary is financially sound. Three or four years ago they were laying off people left and right because they were in a major financial pickle. So at least he's not running it in the ground financially.

The faculty love him. They cancelled the opening convocation "until Greenway is reinstated" (close if not an exact quote from an unofficial notice of the convocation's cancellation). The faculty apparently gave an 80% vote of full confidence to Greenway, with 84% voting for his immediate reinstatement. 93% voted for the full board "to resolve this crisis." This seems different from what the Executive Committee is convening the board for, namely, "to act on the employment of our president."

Who knows? Maybe we'll know at some point. The temptation is of course to make this into some kind of mythical struggle between good and evil, "Asbury at the Crossroads." I suppose it's understandable that many Asbury students are quite distressed over this. It seems that Greenway is very popular among them.

I don't know him hardly at all myself but he is very Wesleyan Church friendly and very much liked by the Wesleyan Seminary Foundation and our Department of Education and the Ministry. Greenway himself was scheduled to come speak to our campus here at IWU this Fall. That is massively impressive. As far as I know, no Asbury president has ever done that.

Certainly Maxie Dunham never came here--probably never even thought of coming here. My impression--and I may be wrong about this--is that if anything Wesleyans were largely overlooked during his tenure. Now consider that more students come from IWU to Asbury than any other single undergraduate institution! David McKenna, the president previous to Dunham, was actually a Free Methodist. But did he ever come to one of the campuses of a Wesleyan college? Maybe he did and I just don't know about it.

So for what it's worth, I hope Greenway is fully reinstated. I say this realizing that this might be the wrong position to have if I knew the full story. But for what it's worth, I like the guy.

If some of the reviews of Greenway's performance as President were bad, why were they bad? It's hard to believe that this is a struggle between a conservative President and a more broadly looking Executive Board. The Board itself is pretty conservative.

So I throw my hands up at guessing and wait for news of what will happen. But it may just be that after we know what happens, we will still not know what happens.

Like the book of Hebrews... God knows what the real story is.

Breathing the Scriptures

Drury has asked me to give some sort of an account for how a Sunday School class might find the inerrant meaning of Scripture, "God's" meaning to the words in possible distinction from the original meaning of the words. This is my attempt to propose what that might look like.

1. First, there are some significant frame of mind issues to consider. First, let's admit that while the biblical text "cues" meanings for us, the factors that lead us to our conclusions go well beyond the text. I mention this as an observation, without engaging the question of "should." Scholars who know the most about the original meaning disagree vigorously on the precise meaning of practically every verse. And those who use the lenses of their traditions to read the Bible also differ dramatically from one another.

There is an inescapable conclusion staring us in the face here. We ultimately are not really getting our understandings from the text. What is really going on here is something bigger than the text, something of which the text itself is a part. The key is to be a part of the divine flow of which Scripture is a part, not to pretend as if we are really getting the nuances of our beliefs from the text itself. This is a paradigm game we play that just doesn't match the diverse situation before us. The Bible is always in the Word of God, but the Word of God is bigger than it.

I doubt you will find a label for what I'm saying. It is my attempt to articulate the way the Christians of the centuries have used Scripture prior to fundamentalism and modernism--the difference is that they did not realize they were reading Scripture this way.

2. So certain important attitudes follow from what we have just said, important preparation as we approach the Bible. First, it implies a certain humility of approach. I do not have it in myself to hear God's voice authentically as I read the text. Hearing God's voice will be a matter of His gracious stooping to me and my understanding. I cannot apply a formula and expect the conclusion to follow Q.E.D.

To be sure, I will do the best I can with what training and prior knowledge I have, but hearing God's voice authentically is a spiritual task. By all means we should use any knowledge we might have of the science of determining the original meaning, as well as of Christian theology and history. But no matter what I know of all these things and the original meaning, the final "jump" to today, appropriation, will require more than a knowledge of the original meaning. I will need spiritual discernment.

Second, I should try to read the Bible in community, with other believers who are listening for God's Spirit as well. I should listen to every voice I can, especially the ones who I believe to have the Spirit. There's no reason not to become acquainted with every interpretation and application Christians have ever suggested throughout the centuries. Perhaps God will quicken one of them to my/our heart.

3. With attitudes of humility and openness, a recognition that the Word of God is not a "do it yourself" meaning, reading in communities of faith, the next step is to steep myself in the content of the Scriptures. I should know these words so well that I breathe them. They should affect my daily speech and the metaphors I use in every day life. They should become an integral part of me that is evident to all who know what they say.

4. I should get in the flow of the church. I should know the common beliefs and practices of Christendom and be able to tell orthodoxy from heterodoxy, righteousness from sin as Christians understand them. These are the fences that must guard my appropriation of the words. I will get short of breath if I tread outside these boundaries.

We are now ready for Sunday School.
1. We come with open hearts, the law of Christ written on our hearts, circumcised in spirit. We bring the Spirit, the communion of saints, a lifestyle of Scripture with us. We come breathing Scripture because we love and adore it, and because we have immersed ourselves in it.

2. We read the text again. We have studied some more in meditation and the reading of the masters, both of the original meaning and the use through the centuries. We have looked at the context some more. We have experienced life through the eyes of the Spirit some more since we last read these words. We get to hear our brothers and sisters bring their new knowledge and experiences to bear on this text again.

3. The Spirit meets us on His timetable, not as something we can conjure or arrange. The Spirit blows when He wills.

4. Repeat as often as possible.

1 Corinthians 11

1 Corinthians 11 is a fun, if somewhat strange, chapter. It deals with head coverings, particularly as they relate to prayer. For me the chapter is of interest for two key reasons: 1) it provides strong evidence that God inspired the Bible within certain contexts and that the teaching of the Bible is often time-bound and contextual and 2) it is an important datum on the subjects of women in ministry and women in the home.

First, it is difficult to deny that Paul sets out a hierarchical structure in the household here (11:3). God is the head of Christ. Christ is the head of a husband/man. A husband is the head of his wife. The last expression is of course a common Mediterranean belief found in Aristotle's Politics some four hundred years before Paul. The first two expressions are more uniquely Christian beliefs.

There is hierarchy here. The Christian tradition has not yet reached its final form on the relationship between Christ and God, so a more traditional Jewish placement of the Messiah in subordination to God seems presumed. As Messiah, of course, Christ is the king over Israel--now defined by Paul in terms that can include Gentiles.

Of course if the relationship of God and Christ is still in process here, then it would be odd to be irrationally fixated on the nature of the relationship between husband and wife here, especially since it is not uniquely Christian but conforms to the language and categories of secular culture at the time.

So we must ask what the inspired point of Paul's language is here? What is God affirming through this text, what is the inerrant point of the text in the light of Christian revelation? Or to put it a better way, where does this text fit in the overarching breath and word of God?

Another important question is, unfortunately, unanswerable in any final terms. Paul crafts his arguments in relation to the needs of his audiences. What is really going on at Corinth that drives him to make these comments? When Paul affirms the cultural order of husband and wife, does he do so wholeheartedly and with umph, or has a bad situation led him to use this particular argument of choice? For example, 1 Corinthians 7 seems unusually focused on women in relation to divorce and remarriage. Yet Jesus' teaching--which Paul refers to--was more likely focused on men. Is there a "wife problem" at Corinth?

I have a hunch there was, but I cannot prove it given the evidence we have. Nor can anyone disprove my hunch either. We simply do not have enough evidence to know. Yet it does make a good deal of difference. Is Paul using arguments he normally would not because of particular problems?

The specific issue Paul is addressing is head covering. Men shouldn't have stuff on their head when they pray or prophesy--that disgraces Christ. Women should have stuff on her head when she prays or prophesies--otherwise she disgraces her husband.

I will pass over the question of what kind of covering is in view. I go for a hair veil.

Where would such prayer and prophecy take place is a more interesting question. The Christian assembly seems to be the right answer, since a person hardly prophesies alone--at least that's not the picture we get from 1 Corinthians 14. So here we have women speaking in the church. It is for this reason that I've long argued that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 cannot forbid women from teaching or preaching. It must refer to disruptive speech. Of course I have a scholarly hunch that 14:34-35 are an early interpolation that wasn't even in the original copy of 1 Corinthians (the verses are displaced in some manuscripts). But that is a difficult issue on which I do not wish to stake any argument.

Why is the most intriguing question. What makes these words tick?

I believe it has to do with the fact that the veil not only functioned as a statement of modesty, but also as a kind of wedding ring. In a Jewish novel of the time called Joseph and Aseneth, Aseneth takes of the veil of her former marriage when she converts to Judaism from Egyptian religion. The meaning is that she has become a virgin again, and thus that Joseph can now marry her and remain pure.

So it would be a disgrace to her husband for her to pray and prophecy around other men in the church or around God and angels (since they are putatively male). She would be acting like she wasn't married.

I strongly suspect this was happening at Corinth. The situation is difficult since churches met in homes where women were not accustomed to wearing their veils. I suspect it was particularly the matron of the house doing so, who was then likely rich because the church would have met in a large house.

What do we gain from this discussion theologically: 1) that the Bible's words were written in historical and situational contexts. They were frequently not written to be read as transcultural or timeless and 2) Paul not only does not forbid women from speaking publically with spiritual speech in church--he assumes it without argument.

The Danger of Labels

The human mind uses labels, general headings, to help "manage" a reality that is full of incredible diversity of detail and complexity. This is of course a good and helpful thing.

The problem comes when we forget that the labels are only aids because our human minds cannot manage the infinite. They are helps to thinking and processing reality. But when we turn them into stereotypes, into self-fulfilling realities, they can service falsehood and evil.

The easy example is prejudice: "all black people" ... or "all 'white' people" (what's a white person anyway? I'm part Dutch, English, Scotch-Irish, and who knows what...).

These are the tools of a demogogue. Hitler used the label of "Jew" to kill a segment of his population. Notice the technique that occurs all the time in much less serious ways: 1) you identify a characteristic that you map to a label, 2) you villify or stereotype or praise the label, 3) then you either intentionally or unintentionally sweep any other good, bad, or ugly out of the picture and let the label itself take over with whatever new connotations you have assigned it--once you have attached the label, the label can determine the meaning regardless of reality or complexity. So the category "Jew" was a fixed category, but Hitler used the significance he attached to the label to justify their elimination.

As a much less harmful example (and, please, I am not intending to compare Bush's war tactices to Hitler's killing of the Jews) the Bush administration tends to do this slight of hand with the word terrorist and with the phrase the war on terror. If the Bush administration can attach this label to something--Iraq, for example--then they can transfer the feelings of 9-11 etc to a different situation. It's why the rhetoric is warming up as the election approaches, counting on the possibility that people will blur things together and vote their emotions.

But actually none of that is what sparked this entry. What sparked this entry is the way I fear some are treating terms like "emergent" or "post-modern." Frankly, these labels are so diverse that they don't really have much meaning to them at all. And that's what makes them dangerous. If you can attach the label "post-modern" to something, then you can dismiss it lock, stock, and barrel. Indeed, at this point "straw men" come into play. You pick the most extreme example of a "post-modern," get a congregation or radio audience angry at it, then you can transfer those emotions to something that is actually valid or insignificant.

I tell you the truth (and so beware trying to use the label post-modern on me in the fashion I just mentioned)--I am not the most intelligent or most informed person. I could give you names of people in academia who regularly make me feel stupid. I do not write what I write now out of arrogance. But the level of logic that passes for thinking from so many Christian pulpits out there and in so many pews is simply pathetic, riddled full of so many holes that it embarrases me as a Christian.

Here are some more reminders (again) on absolutes, relativism, and post-modernism: first, there is a difference between these terms in ethics and these terms in knowledge. The first has to do with morality, the second has to do with truth. They are related, but don't confuse them. They are separate issues.

Second, at least from a pragmatic perspective, all people are both absolutist and relativist in both domains at the same time. If you believe in convictions, you are a relativist on some questions of morality. And even the most extreme professed postmodernist gets out of the way of moving traffic. And clearly Christians can have different perspectives on the same issue when there is not a clear cut answer either from the Bible or Christian tradition. To say that doesn't mean that there are no right answers to many questions. Sheeze, get a brain!

Bottom line: stop beating up on the label "postmodern" or "emergent"--you don't know what you're talking about. All it does is get irrational, feeble minded people to go burn things down. The real questions are these: what moral actions are exceptionless, which ones are universal with exceptions, which ones are relative, which ones are not even a matter of morality? What is the degree of certainty we have on various questions of truth? Which ones require blind faith and which ones are demonstrable on the basis of evidence.

Oh American Christian, please, please stop being a disgrace to the God of truth. Develop the brain He hath given thee.

It's an Ecclesiastes Day

Ever have an Ecclesiastes Day. Since it's in the Bible, it must be allowed.

What's an Ecclesiastes Day, you ask? It's a day when you really feel like saying something from the first 11 chapters of Ecclesiastes, like this (mostly RSV):

"the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those of skill; bt time and chance happen to them all."

Or

"What does someone gain by all the toil under the sun? A generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth remains for ever. The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises."

It's allowed... as long as you get to chapter 12 regularly too!

The Wesleyan Church Today: A Demographic

I was thinking about the different "ideological groups" in the WC today yesterday and came up with three:

1. What I thought would be the bulk of traditional Wesleyans out there, conservative in thought and action, small churches, etc...
2. Those who have leaned fundamentalist, particularly in the western part of the church, not including California, tend to lean against women in ministry, follow Dobson and Republican politics somewhat actively.
3. The emergents who are struck by the diversity of the world and the church. They're very open minded to new ideas and things. It's a small group but their internet savvy has given them significant influence.

In conversation around the coffee pot here at IWU, a fourth group was added:
4. Us... The IWU type that is very much in continuity with the larger church scene of our denomination.

So after the conversation was over, the straw demographic of the WC was shuffled a little in my mind into this format:

1. The fundamentalizing element, mostly out West
2. The traditional Wesleyan element, the largest number of churches (mostly small), but perhaps a little less than half the people in the denomination
3. The "large church"/most Wesleyan college constituency, which probably also makes up about half the people in the denomination (some of our large churches could fit 50 smaller ones in them).
4. The emergent crowd, that is experimenting on the edges

What do you think?

Fact, Fiction, and Spin: Recent Bush Rhetoric

I don't have time to pursue specifics, but here is my evaluation of some recent "Bush Rhetoric," coming from Bush himself, Cheney the Snake, and Rumsfield the Blunt.

Cheney: Still playing the "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" card.

Spin and Fiction. The people we're fighting in Iraq would not have come here anyway, and the plots to come here are just as in process as they would have been otherwise. "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" was independent of Al-Qaeda to begin with and asked if they could join. Most of the fighting right now isn't even insurgent fighting. It's Shiites fighting Sunnis and visa versa.

Bush, Rumsfeld: It would be perilous to withdraw from Iraq without leaving the country stable.

Fact. It would be very undesirable to leave Iraq in its current state. It would almost certainly degenerate into civil war and what would emerge is a Shiite power aligned fully with Iran, with perhaps a Kurdish nation to the north. Of course I get irritated with slogans like "cut and run," because they play on most people's inability to grasp complex situations with multiple variables. So we assign simple labels to things and then pretend like it's an all inclusive answer.

Bush: History will see that we've done a good thing here.

Fiction. History will consider Bush a farce and the primary cause of one of the most perilous world situations in the first half of the twenty-first century. Sure, 9-11 was the spark, but the current situation is mostly the result of Bush's response to the war. For those who want proof, it is easily at hand:

After 9-11, Before Iraq War
Al-Qaeda a marginal group that most Arab states reject

After the Iraq War
Al-Qaeda becomes a unifying force among "Islamo-fascist" groups, disempowered groups gain power over moderate groups, a whole next generation of youths come of age under extreme anti-American rhetoric.


Before Iraq
US sympathetic regime in control of Spain

After Iraq
US sympathetic regime voted out


Before Iraq
Moderate government in control in Iran

After Iraq
Extremist government elected in Iran, one with which we may soon find ourselves at war, yet we don't have the resources to deal handily with it because we are bogged down in Iraq


Before Iraq
Turkey, a vibrant allay

After Iraq
Turkey a tenuous ally having to deal with increased "Islamo-fascism" in its own borders


Before Iraq
At least American conversant Fatah in leadership of Palestinian authority

After Iraq
Hamas elected to leadership of Palestinian authority


Before Iraq
American in many places thought "fun," "Hollywood," "John Wayne," not really taken seriously but liked

After Iraq
America considered scary, a threat, an imbecile with a really big gun. Bush rhetoric of axis of evil leads N. Korea and Iran to even more aggressive pursuit of nuclear weapons


Before Iraq
France, Germany vote with US like Britain

After Iraq
Increasing resistance to US proposals, increased talk of a need for the EU, China-Russia-Chavez to be counterbalance to a dangerous USA


In the light of recent Lebanon crisis
Before: Lebanon run by a US sympathetic government

After: Hezbollah with increased clout in part by association of Israel's tactics, America's tactics in Iraq, America's carte blanche support for Israel.

So I'm going with "fiction" on the idea that history will smile at all on George Bush. Sorry Charlie, your historical goose is cooked.


Bush, Cheney: The Democrats are weak on defense. Elect Republicans.

True, but spin. Again, this plays on simple minded Americans who can't handle complexity--this is the "fallacy of composition"--generalizing something that is true of a part and applying it lock, stock, and barrel to the whole. I guess most Americans aren't smart enough to handle this very difficult concept: whether an individual is weak on defense or not depends on whether that individual--Republican or Democrat--is weak on defense.

Having said that, I do think in general that Republicans tend to be stronger on defense than Democrats. But I don't vote for a party. I vote for individuals.

Bush: If you don't support the Iraq war, you don't understand the war on terror or you are weak on terrorism. If you don't support my way, the Islamo-fascists will blow up your house.

False, spin, sometimes true. First there's the fallacy of identifying the war on terror with the war in Iraq. You could be entirely for the "war" on terrorism and be against Bush's way of prosecuting the war and the war on Iraq. That's why I'd vote for John McCain today.

And that's the way I see it, Thursday, August 31, 2006.

Interesting Discussion of Women in Ministry

Scot McKnight has an interesting discussion going on today on his blog re: women in ministry in decline among churches that have traditionally affirmed it.

http://www.jesuscreed.org/

A Difficult Verse: Romans 6:7

Most, if not all translations render Romans 6:7 something like "he who has died is freed from sin" (e.g., the RSV). But the Greek is actually quite startling. Its meaning is at least potentially quite different:

"The one who has died has been justified (and stands justified) from sin"!

This has been a tantalizing verse to me for some years, for it is quite possible that some Jews believed that death had atoning significance. In 4 Maccabees, a righteous man named Eleazar is said to be perfected by death (7:15). Dare we even ponder the possibility that Paul thought that most individuals find rest in the afterlife because their sins are atoned for by death?

In this connection, it is noticeable that Paul only speaks of the resurrection of the dead in Christ. He never mentions the resurrection of any other dead--including OT saints and the heinously wicked. Paul nowhere uses the word Gehenna or even Hades. He does mention those under the earth in Philippians 2, arguably a reference to the dead. As far as I can tell, there is only one exception: 2 Timothy 4:1, which is either the last of Paul's writings or, if you go with most non-evangelical scholars, pseudonymous. It mentions the judgment of the living and the dead in a manner we do not find anywhere else in the Pauline corpus. Elsewhere Paul mentions only the judgment of the living and the resurrection of the dead in Christ.

So whether it is correct or not, I think it would be very difficult to disprove that Paul believed that only the dead who were baptized in Christ's name would rise from the dead and that everyone else found rest because death justified for their sins. Of course you cannot prove this position either, since we are basically dealing with a matter of silence on Paul's part.

Whatever the original meanings of these verses, the Christian understandings of these matters are clear enough. We believe in a general resurrection of all, and we do not believe that death justifies the ungodly.

But you can see how easy it would be to argue that something "heretical" was Paul's original meaning. On the other hand, these are the places where conservative scholars like Tom Wright and Ben Witherington work their magic, arguing for original meanings that cohere with orthodox faith. My faith stands fine regardless. The church has made it clear what we are to believe. And it is certainly possible to argue that an orthodox meaning was original, even if you can't prove it is really the original or prove that the other reading is wrong historically.

But I think at some point in the next thirty years evangelicalism will grow up and finally acknowledge that we need more than just the biblical text in its original meaning to have a sound Christian faith. If we do not allow for the consensus of the church, the Bible is susceptible to all sorts of heretical interpretations, and some of them might just have been the original meanings!

My thoughts tonight...