Asbury Faculty and Administration Wonder #8

Now the 8th installment. You might note that conversations continue under previous Asbury posts.

The flurry of reports and narratives dating from 1 September 2006 has shed light on and generated heat regarding the critical situation in which Asbury Theological Seminary now finds itself. We are left with a number of questions. This is the eighth.

We wonder how decisions regarding President Greenway’s performance could be based on a review process that was flawed at each step of the way — from the preparation of a survey instrument to the conducting of the survey to the evaluation of the survey results.

Based on reports received from the Vice-Chair of the Board, we conclude that the review process adopted by the Board Chair-appointed ad hoc review committee was defective in especially two respects.

First, in spite of Board Policies to the contrary, the focus of the review was not on President Greenway’s performance vis-a-vis the objectives set for him by the Board of Trustees in the context of his 2005 evaluation.

Second, the research process did not meet the minimal standards expected of qualitative research.

(1) The survey questions were ill-designed and not tied to President Greenway’s performance.

(2) A small number of the some 2000 persons (viz., students, staff, faculty, administration) from whom survey participants might have been chosen were selected without attention to achieving either a genuinely representative or random sample. Since the final list of participants was chosen by only one person, the Board Chair, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the choice of participants reflects a subjectivity inappropriate to qualitative research.

(3) Rather than analyzing the data according to the protocols of qualitative research, the Board Chair prepared what the Vice-Chair characterized as a "cut and paste" summary. We wonder how a process, so egregiously flawed from start to finish, could have been allowed to serve as the basis of President Greenway’s performance review.

Signed:
Kenneth A. Boyd, Ph.D., Professor of Instructional Design
Allan Coppedge, Ph.D., Ralph Waldo Beeson Professor of Christian Theology
Ronald K. Crandall, D.Th.P., McCreless Professor of Evangelism and Sundo Kim Professor of Evangelism and Practical Theology
Richard L. Gray, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Leadership and Christian Ministry
Joel B. Green, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament Interpretation
Chuck Gutenson, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Philosophical Theology
Virginia Todd Holeman, Ph.D., Professor of Counseling
Eunice L. Irwin, Ph.D., Associate Professor: Mission and Contextual Theology
Randy Jessen, D.Min., Dean, Beeson International Center for Biblical Preaching and Church Leadership
C. Reginald Johnson, Ph.D., Roy and Weezie Anderson Professor of Prayer and Spiritual Formation
Hugo Magallanes, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Church in Society
Terry C. Muck, Ph.D., Professor of Missions and World Religions
M. Robert Mulholland Jr., Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Ruth Anne Reese, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Lester Ruth, Ph.D., Lily May Jarvis Professor of Christian Worship
Michael A. Rynkiewich, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology
Daryl Smith, Ed.D., Associate Professor of Mentored Ministry and Christian Leadership
Catherine Stonehouse, Ph.D., Orlean Bullard Beeson Professor of Christian Discipleship
David L. Thompson, Ph.D., F.M. and Ada Thompson Professor of Biblical Studies
Thomas F. Tumblin, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Christian Leadership
Jerry L. Walls, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy of Religion
Ben Witherington III, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Laurence W. Wood, Ph.D., Frank Paul Morris Professor of Systematic Theology

What Saint Paul Really Said: Review, Part 1

Summary/Discussion of the First Two Chapters

Chapter 1 -- History of Scholarship
Wright introduces us to some of the key players in twentieth century interpretation of Paul:

1. Albert Schweitzer -- Being in Christ central to Paul's thought, not justification by faith; Paul to be understood against the backdrop of Jewish, apocalyptic thought; Paul expected the end of the world to come at any moment

2. Rudolph Bultmann -- An individual's justification by faith central to Paul's thought; the truth behind this concept is existentialist, even though Paul himself would not have fully understood that truth. Paul's thought to be understood against a Hellenistic (Greek) context.

3. W. D. Davies -- Things that Bultmann and others thought were Greek can be explained against a Jewish context. More a rabbinic Jewish backdrop rather than an apocalyptic one, however.

4. Ernst Käsemann -- Paul's background Jewish apocalyptic, but the center of his thought still justification by faith; Paul's critique a critique within Judaism, one in a long history of such inner critiques

5. E. P. Sanders -- Judaism was not a religion of works righteousness; Jews kept the law to "stay in" not "get in"; participation in Christ and justification by faith two sides of the same coin, but participation in Christ Paul's more natural language

Chapter 2 -- Paul's Background
1. Paul was perhaps a Shammaite Pharisee. This was the stricter of the two Pharisee sects (the schools of Hillel and Shammai) and the one more likely to include militants. Tension between this conclusion and the idea that Paul studied with Gamaliel, a Hillelite (perhaps even the grandson of Hillel). Note: Judas Maccabee may be the best model for understanding "zeal for the law" at this time in history.

2. Cardinal points of Jewish theology at this time: monotheism, election, and eschatology (James Dunn has, by contrast, spoken of monotheism, election, covenant, and land as the "four pillars" of Judaism at this time. Several things to debate here: 1) this really seems to apply more to Judaism in Palestine than in the Diaspora and 2) I'm a little uncomfortable with the word "eschatology," but I think what Wright meant was the idea that Israel was destined to be restored politically. Many key Jewish groups of the time certainly held such views, and they are reflected in the NT in passages like Acts 1:6, "Are you now going to restore the kingdom to Israel" and perhaps Romans 11:26, "and so all Israel will be saved."

Wright makes a claim that I have long found intriguing, but unsure what to make of it. He makes the claim that Paul grew up with and thus "lived on passages like Daniel 2, 7, and 9, believing that they promised the coming kingdom of God very soon" (30; see also 34). But the evidence he mentions is 4 Ezra, which dates from about AD100. I might also add a document called the "Parables of Enoch." But you might argue that both of these documents are Essene and do not necessarily reflect mainstream Judaism. I continue to believe that Jesus' references to himself as "son of man" were probably deeply ambiguous to those who heard it. "Is he saying he's the Son of Man from Daniel that the Essenes speculate about or is he saying, 'I'm just a guy, a "son of man" like you all?'"

I am also unsure how many Jews at this time would have agreed with this statement: "The call of Abraham was designed to undo the sin of Adam" (33). In fact, does Paul himself ever bring Abraham and Adam together in this way? My initial impression is rather that Adam and Abraham serve unconnected purposes in Paul's argumentation and that Wright is connecting logical dots that Paul himself never did. I will admit that I have not thought this claim through completely.

Another point of great interest is when Wright suggests that "'Justification' thus describes the coming great act of redemption and salvation, seen from the point of view of the covenant (Israel is God's people) on the one hand and the law court on the other (God's final judgment will be like a great law-court scene, with Israel winning the case). I resist the idea that Israel wins the case, since they are also subject to God's judgment. Perhaps Wright is correct to think of the judgment being rendered to some extent collectively, as the ancient world was a group culture. On the other hand, "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ" (2 Cor. 5:10) means "each of us" (5:11), so there is an individual judgment involved as well regardless of Jew or Gentile.

In the tradition of his great mentor, G. B. Caird, Wright does not believe that Jews meant "end of the world" language literally (34). This allows him to see things like the destruction of Jerusalem as the fulfillment of prophecies on "the coming/going of Christ." I agree that this is true of OT literature and probably some Jewish literature from the time of Christ. But is it true of Jesus and the New Testament authors? I just find it hard to believe that Paul didn't mean for us to take statements like "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" literally (1 Cor. 15:50).

Summary of section (34-35): 1) The pre-believing Paul was zealous for Israel's God and Torah, 2) people like Paul kept the Torah zealously expecting to be "marked out already" as one to be vindicated on the coming day, and 3) Paul's zeal and power actions towards others intended to hasten that day. Definitely #1; number two, yes, but would like to hear specifics; number 3, sounds good but not completely sure.

3. "Conversion" and Significance
There is of course debate over whether we should refer to Paul's Damascus road experience as a conversion. If we keep in mind that he was not converting to Christianity from Judaism -- if we think of him converting to a particular Jewish sect away from the Pharisees, or perhaps from more mainstream Judaism to a smaller Jewish sect (no denigration in the term, it's a sociological description) -- then I'm OK with the term.

Wright believes that once he believed in Jesus' resurrection, it would have followed that he would believe that the great eschatological beliefs he had were in motion, that the Age to Come had already begun. I like it.

We Wonder #7 and an Apology

First the apology: Some of my recent comments have crossed the line. I'm sorry. Clearly I don't know the whole story of what is going on at Asbury. I'm sure that Greenway has made some significant missteps (including not returning to the evaluation), although I haven't heard one yet that I thought merited firing.

I continue to support the faculty "we wonder" series as truths on one side of this balance sheet. I continue to think that the EXCO's approach was a serious mistake--particularly because in an internet age this in between time only damages the seminary with each passing day. I believe that it has demonstrated a stubbornness that, while they feel they are justified in having, has not been helpful.

I plan to continue to report on the situation as these kinds of things surface, but will try from this point on to heed the respectful advice of a former IWU student, given in the words of Thomas a Kempis: "He should only speak who prefers to be silent."

Now "The Faculty Wonder #7"
The flurry of reports and narratives dating from 1 September 2006 has shed light on and generated heat regarding the critical situation in which Asbury Theological Seminary now finds itself. We are left with a number of questions. This is the seventh.

We wonder why the voice of the Plenary Faculty has never been acknowledged — nor, as far we know, ever given serious consideration -- by the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees.

In an effort to practice the "shared governance" mandated of seminaries accredited by The Association of Theological Schools (Standards of Accreditation, The Association of Theological Schools, Commission on Accreditation §8), the Faculty of Asbury Theological Seminary, meeting on September 5, 2006, drew attention to a series of perceived defects in the process leading up to and including the decision to place President Greenway on leave.

Among the Plenary Faculty’s resolutions were the following:

"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)."

Although the Resolution of the Plenary Faculty was forwarded to the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees at its meeting on September 5, 2006, to date the Faculty has received neither formal nor informal acknowledgment of its actions. This leads us to wonder about the commitment of the Executive committee to the principles and practice of shared governance.

Signed:
Kenneth A. Boyd, Ph.D., Professor of Instructional Design
Allan Coppedge, Ph.D., Ralph Waldo Beeson Professor of Christian Theology
Ronald K. Crandall, D.Th.P., McCreless Professor of Evangelism and Sundo Kim Professor of Evangelism and Practical Theology
Richard L. Gray, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Leadership and Christian Ministry
Joel B. Green, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament Interpretation
Chuck Gutenson, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Philosophical Theology
Virginia Todd Holeman, Ph.D., Professor of Counseling
Eunice L. Irwin, Ph.D., Associate Professor: Mission and Contextual Theology
Randy Jessen, D.Min., Dean, Beeson International Center for Biblical Preaching and Church Leadership
C. Reginald Johnson, Ph.D., Roy and Weezie Anderson Professor of Prayer and Spiritual Formation
Hugo Magallanes, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Church in Society
Terry C. Muck, Ph.D., Professor of Missions and World Religions
M. Robert Mulholland Jr., Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Ruth Anne Reese, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Christine Pohl, Ph.D., Professor of Church in Society
Lester Ruth, Ph.D., Lily May Jarvis Professor of Christian Worship
Michael A. Rynkiewich, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology
Daryl Smith, Ed.D., Associate Professor of Mentored Ministry and Christian Leadership
Catherine Stonehouse, Ph.D., Orlean Bullard Beeson Professor of Christian Discipleship
David L. Thompson, Ph.D., F.M. and Ada Thompson Professor of Biblical Studies
Thomas F. Tumblin, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Christian Leadership
Jerry L. Walls, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy of Religion
Ben Witherington III, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Laurence W. Wood, Ph.D., Frank Paul Morris Professor of Systematic Theology

Greenway's Evaluation: An Anonymous Request

An Anonymous Consultant has asked me to open a discussion on Greenway's performance.

But I don't think s/he expected me to, because that was his/her point. I do not know much about Greenway's performance as a seminary president other than his relationship with Indiana Wesleyan University, the Wesleyan Church, and with the faculty of Asbury.

Thus anonymous says,
This situation obviously has several layers and unique conditions, but one of the most significant events was the actual performance review of Jeff. It seems that if the review were satisfactory to both sides we would never be in this position. But it wasn’t satisfactory. Jeff’s response to his negative review was to end the process and claim the process was invalid.

Since then, a “flurry” of reports and narratives has surfaced that discuss everything but Jeff’s performance (missteps by certain trustees, interpretations of bylaws, validity of the 360 review, etc.). Sure, there are some references to him being a good guy and upholding the mission of Asbury, but there are not many substantial remarks being made about how he actually performed save successful fundraising (which, as you mentioned earlier, cannot be contributed all to Jeff).

My thoughts: But Jeff's performance is not the stated reason for his termination. "Insubordination" is. These are not the reasons the EXCO has given toward Greenway's termination. And apparently, nothing from the evaluation is being given to the broader board in explanation. In other words, the EXCO itself apparently has not, to this point, given any evidence from the evaluation in favor of his leave or the motion toward his termination.

Anonymous says,
Supposing that the board deems the process was invalid, and supposing that, per Jeff’s wishes, a third party would come in and complete the performance evaluation of Jeff, how specifically would you (and your insiders) quantify Jeff’s success? And – even if the report came back “good,” would there still be merit if the board suggested that one could perform better?

My thoughts: I would be delighted for the full board to make a determination based on a fair and impartial review. I have only argued that Greenway is being railroaded here, not that he should be president after a fair review. I can't know that.

Anonymous:
To give good criteria to your response, could your categorize what you know about Jeff’s accomplishments by using the chapter topics of the recent published, A handbook for seminary presidents / edited by G. Douglass Lewis and Lovett H. Weems, Jr.

1. The President's Vocation and Leadership
2. The President's Role in Administration and Personnel Management
3. The President's Role in Governance
4. The President's Role in Defining Mission and Strategic Planning
5. The President as Academic Leader
6. The President's Role in Financial Management
7. The President's Role in Managing Facilities
8. The President's Role in Institutional Advancement
9. The President's Role in Enrollment Management
10. The President's Role with External Authorities
11. Personal and Professional Well-being of a President
12. The President as Symbolic, Culture-forming Leader

Please be as specific as you can.

My thoughts: This seems like a fair enough list, but I don't think it is the 6 point list that the board approved last year to be the basis for Greenway's evaluation.

Anonymous says: Please be careful to distinguish Jeff’s contribution from “Joe/Jane faculty or administrator.”I would like to make a request that you, in your spirit of trying to discern the truth, make your answers to this specific question in a new blog entry where others could add to it in the comments.

My thoughts: Certainly if the board would like to use my blog as a whiteboard, they are welcome to. :-) Of course that would be inappropriate. But as far as I can tell, no one has been able to come up with any glaring failure or weakness that would seem to justify puting him on leave pending his termination.

I think it would have been a great idea 32 days ago even to put him on leave pending such a fair and objective 3rd party evaluation.

Asbury Faculty and Administration Wonder #6

The flurry of reports and narratives dating from 1 September 2006 has shed light on and generated heat regarding the critical situation in which Asbury Theological Seminary now finds itself. We are left with a number of questions. This is the sixth.

We wonder why the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees has allowed a governance situation to emerge at the Seminary which places us in a vulnerable relationship with The Association of Theological Schools (TATS) and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS).

In its memorandum of September 5, 2006, the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees requested "that our chairman meet with the senior leaders, representing the board, as much as he is able, until the full board can determine the longer term provision of institutional leadership in the president’s office." Subsequently, the Board Chair has met with the President’s Leadership Steering Team (PLST), has requested copies of its minutes, has participated in the choice of the PLST’s chair in the President’s absence, has countermanded that decision by naming another chair (twice), has directed the work of members of the PLST, and, through members of the PLST, has directed the work of both administration and staff.

In such ways as these, the Board Chair has exercised leadership in both governance and administration and functioned as the de facto chief executive officer of the Seminary, in spite of clear board policies and accreditation standards to the contrary. Although we do not doubt the authority of the Executive Committee, acting on behalf of the Board of Trustees, to appoint an acting or interim president, the Executive Committee has not done so; we presume that, if they were to do so, the chief executive officer would not serve both in this appointed role and in the elected role of a member of the Board of Trustees.

Relevant statements from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Principles of Accreditation:

"The institution has a chief executive officer whose primary responsibility is to the institution and who is not the presiding officer of the board" (2.3).

"There is a clear and appropriate distinction, in writing and practice, between the policy-making functions of the governing board and the responsibility of the administration and faculty to administer and implement policy" (3.2.6).

Relevant statements from the Standards of Accreditation, The Association of Theological Schools, Commission on Accreditation:

"The governing board is responsible for the establishment and maintenance of the institution’s integrity and its freedom from inappropriate external and internal pressures, and from destructive interference or restraints. It shall attend to the well-being of the institution by exercising proper fiduciary responsibility, adequate financial oversight, proper delegation of authority to the institution’s administrative officers and faculty, and the maintenance of procedural fairness and freedom of inquiry" (8.3.1.1)

"The governing board shall create and employ adequate structures for implementing and administering policy, and shall delegate to the school’s chief administrative leadership authority commensurate with such responsibilities." (8.3.1.6)

"The board shall exercise its authority only as a group. An individual member, unless authorized by the board, shall not commit the institution’s resources nor bind it to any course of action, nor intrude upon the administration of the institution" (8.3.1.8).
Similarly, according to the Asbury Theological Seminary Board Policies (May 12, 2003), "The board will govern with an emphasis on ... clear distinction of board and chief executive roles" (Serial No: 2.2; emphasis added).

Signed:
Kenneth A. Boyd, Ph.D., Professor of Instructional Design
Allan Coppedge, Ph.D., Ralph Waldo Beeson Professor of Christian Theology
Ronald K. Crandall, D.Th.P., McCreless Professor of Evangelism and Sundo Kim Professor of Evangelism and Practical Theology
Richard L. Gray, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Leadership and Christian Ministry
Joel B. Green, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament Interpretation
Chuck Gutenson, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Philosophical Theology
Virginia Todd Holeman, Ph.D., Professor of Counseling
Eunice L. Irwin, Ph.D., Associate Professor: Mission and Contextual Theology
Randy Jessen, D.Min., Dean, Beeson International Center for Biblical Preaching and Church Leadership
C. Reginald Johnson, Ph.D., Roy and Weezie Anderson Professor of Prayer and Spiritual Formation
Tapiwa Mucherera, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Pastoral Counseling
Terry C. Muck, Ph.D., Professor of Missions and World Religions
M. Robert Mulholland Jr., Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Christine Pohl, Ph.D., Professor of Church in Society
Ruth Anne Reese, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Lester Ruth, Ph.D., Lily May Jarvis Professor of Christian Worship
Michael A. Rynkiewich, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology
Daryl Smith, Ed.D., Associate Professor of Mentored Ministry and Christian Leadership
Catherine Stonehouse, Ph.D., Orlean Bullard Beeson Professor of Christian Discipleship
David L. Thompson, Ph.D., F.M. and Ada Thompson Professor of Biblical Studies
Thomas F. Tumblin, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Christian Leadership
Jerry L. Walls, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy of Religion
Ben Witherington III, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Laurence W. Wood, Ph.D., Frank Paul Morris Professor of Systematic Theology

Now 22 days since Smith could have convened the board and thus 22 days since this crisis could have been resolved.

By the way, what was that charge against Greenway? Hmmm. Wasn't it that he had an autocratic leadership style?

Pot calling kettle, pot calling kettle, come in kettle...

The State of the Question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Investigative Committee To Be Appointed

Since I offended many in the way I originally posted this, I'll present the information now seriously.

In a letter to the board of trustees, Jim Smith indicated that an Investigative Committee was being appointed relative to the firing of President Greenway. The name of John McNairy was suggested to chair the committee. There was nothing in the letter to indicate any skeletons in Greenway's closet to justify firing him.

This letter fits with that which the majority of faculty have long been claiming: that Jim Smith and the EXCO core have no intention for Greenway to be reinstated, that McNairy is one of the ones squarely behind Smith, and that the board is divided. Otherwise there is no way this information could have come to me.

From Smith's perspective, it makes sense to have the paper firing Greenway ready for the board to sign on the 17th.

Now 21 days since Smith could have called the board and, thus, since this crisis could have been resolved.

Comment by Larry Wood on Asbury Situation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Asbury Faculty and Administration Wonder #5

The fifth installment. For ye Wesleyans, note that David Thompson has joined the list of wonderers:

The flurry of reports and narratives dating from 1 September 2006 has shed light on and generated heat regarding the critical situation in which Asbury Theological Seminary now finds itself. We are left with a number of questions. This is the fifth.

We wonder about the nature of the assignment given to the consultant (viz., Dr. Robert Andringa) hired by the by the Chair of the Board for assistance in the president’s review process. Presumably, he was to provide outside perspective on the process of formative review, but we have witnessed his becoming an advocate both for a particular interpretation of the events and for a particular conclusion to the review process. We wonder how the sense of objectivity necessary to engender confidence in his participation can be maintained.

Dr. Andringa’s impressive resume notwithstanding, we find his actions puzzling. His interests and concerns have expanded far beyond providing perspective and assistance to the Board Chair-appointed ad hoc review committee regarding President Greenway’s performance. Any claim to his working with the outside perspective generally expected of a consultant is mitigated, for example, by his personal, written communication to President Greenway and at least one other alumnus of the Seminary subsequent to the critical events of 30 August - 5 September; moreover, he initiated a threat against at least one alumnus who reported on what this alumnus had determined was a flawed review process.

We are also unsure on what basis Dr. Andringa contacted on behalf of the Seminary the agencies with whom we have accreditation — an action reserved for the chief executive officer and the accreditation liaison officer. On the basis of Dr. Andringa’s behavior in these matters, we wonder to what degree his participation in this process is characterized by his own, vested interests, whether this process was capable of generating a fair assessment of President Greenway’s performance, and on what basis he has continued to be involved in the management of concerns surrounding the future of Asbury Theological Seminary.

Signed:
Kenneth A. Boyd, Ph.D., Professor of Instructional Design
Allan Coppedge, Ph.D., Ralph Waldo Beeson Professor of Christian Theology
Ronald K. Crandall, D.Th.P., McCreless Professor of Evangelism and Sundo Kim Professor of Evangelism and Practical Theology
Richard L. Gray, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Leadership and Christian Ministry
Joel B. Green, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament Interpretation
Chuck Gutenson, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Philosophical Theology
Virginia Todd Holeman, Ph.D., Professor of Counseling
Eunice L. Irwin, Ph.D., Associate Professor: Mission and Contextual Theology
Randy Jessen, D.Min., Dean, Beeson International Center for Biblical Preaching and Church Leadership
C. Reginald Johnson, Ph.D., Roy and Weezie Anderson Professor of Prayer and Spiritual Formation
Hugo Magallanes, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Church in Society
Terry C. Muck, Ph.D., Professor of Missions and World Religions
M. Robert Mulholland Jr., Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Christine Pohl, Ph.D., Professor of Church in Society
Ruth Anne Reese, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Lester Ruth, Ph.D., Lily May Jarvis Professor of Christian Worship
Michael A. Rynkiewich, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology
Daryl Smith, Ed.D., Associate Professor of Mentored Ministry and Christian Leadership
Catherine Stonehouse, Ph.D., Orlean Bullard Beeson Professor of Christian Discipleship
David L. Thompson, Ph.D., F.M. and Ada Thompson Professor of Biblical Studies
Thomas F. Tumblin, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Christian Leadership
Jerry L. Walls, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy of Religion
Ben Witherington III, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Laurence W. Wood, Ph.D., Frank Paul Morris Professor of Systematic Theology

Now 21 days since Jim Smith could have called the board into emergency session and since this crisis could have been resolved. Now 21 days of delay because there has never been any inkling of desire or thought on his part that Greenway's presidency should survive.

The Other Side: Lawson Stone's Wondering

Lawson Stone has provided the best potential rebuttal to the "We Wonder" series of the majority of the tenured faculty. Here are his wonderings in response to theirs:

I wonder how everyone knows for sure that the president has not been invited to the meeting, and to preparatory meetings prior to October 17, which any thoughtful person surely knows will be held.

I'd be glad to hear that he was. My hunch is that there have been preparatory meetings all right, but not with Greenway or many beyond the power core of the board. By the way, I've noticed that Maxie Dunnam has started reading posts in the Alumni Coffee House. Wonder if he's warming up for an interim presidency that Smith thinks is already a done deal?

I wonder what role the president's attorney plays in complicating the Board's attempt to hear from the President at the meeting? I wonder what demands the president's attorney has made as conditions to the president's potential acceptance of the Board's invitation, should it occur?
I wonder how much the "We Wonder" group knows, and from whom they know it? What if the Board has in fact asked the president to be present? What if the the president and his lawyer scuttle the process and thus confirm the "We Wonder" group's suspicions? What if they all know about that?

I like Lawson. But you won't convince me easily that individuals like Larry Wood or Cathy Stonehouse are anything but pure of heart. They're just not the kind of political types who would deliberately mislead in this way. If there's a conspiracy, then someone has to be manipulating most of the people on this list, and "pure of heart" in this case doesn't mean stupid or gullible.

I don't know how the "We Wonder" group knows what they claim to know. I don't know enough to call anyone to join me in any action. I only have fragments and speculations, because the people I know don't violate their confidences in the interest of their faction's program or power.
I wonder if anyone calling loudly and long has a weekly, intimate, mentoring meeting with the president, and has done so for a long time? Why have they not disclosed their bias and the potential source of their information?

Peter Kerr got a little testy with Lawson yesterday, but I know that more than one person agrees with Peter on this claim: that Lawson seems to know some confidential stuff too. Of course the more we know, the better we can understand what's really going on here. I don't begrudge anyone knowledge that can help us get at the truth here.

I still wonder what's really going on here. My intuitions tell me this is not really about the presidency at all, but is somehow about weakening a board that has exercised a good bit of oversight at the point of the school's founding values and mission.

Perhaps there is some truth to this but in a slightly different way. We have a very strong part of the board with a very strong vision for what Asbury should be. It makes sense to think that they do not think Greenway fits as well with that vision and thus think that getting rid of Greenway is key to movement toward that vision.

But ultimately such a core does not get to decide by themselves what the seminary will be. It is officially the board as a whole that decides this in conjunction with the faculty.

Asbury Faculty and Administration Wonder #4

Wonder, the Fourth

The flurry of reports and narratives dating from 1 September 2006 has shed light on and generated heat regarding the critical situation in which Asbury Theological Seminary now finds itself. We are left with a number of questions. This is the fourth.

We wonder why the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees has not pursued the possibility of outside mediation between itself and President Greenway.

We understand that communication between President Greenway and some members of the Executive Committee has broken down. Quite apart from any need on our part to allocate blame to one party or another, we wonder why the Executive Committee has not initiated the use of an outside mediator in its desire to understand what has transpired and in its concern for reconciliation. We understand that the steps toward reconciliation outlined in Matthew 18:15-18 are complicated by contractual documents, but believe that the services of a mediator external to the Seminary could help to transcend those complications. If the Executive Committee has the authority to negotiate an offer of severance with President Greenway, which we understand it has sought to do, would it not also have the authority to engage the services of a mediator?

Would the intervention of a mediator not serve the goal of reconciliation?

Signed:
Kenneth A. Boyd, Ph.D., Professor of Instructional Design
Allan Coppedge, Ph.D., Ralph Waldo Beeson Professor of Christian Theology
Ronald K. Crandall, D.Th.P., McCreless Professor of Evangelism and Sundo Kim Professor of Evangelism and Practical Theology
Richard L. Gray, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Leadership and Christian Ministry
Joel B. Green, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament Interpretation
Chuck Gutenson, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Philosophical Theology
Virginia Todd Holeman, Ph.D., Professor of Counseling
Eunice L. Irwin, Ph.D., Associate Professor: Mission and Contextual Theology
Randy Jessen, D.Min., Dean, Beeson International Center for Biblical Preaching and Church Leadership
C. Reginald Johnson, Ph.D., Roy and Weezie Anderson Professor of Prayer and Spiritual Formation
Hugo Magallanes, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Church in Society
Tapiwa Mucherera, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Pastoral Counseling
Terry C. Muck, Ph.D., Professor of Missions and World Religions
M. Robert Mulholland Jr., Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Ruth Anne Reese, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Christine Pohl, Ph.D., Professor of Church in Society
Lester Ruth, Ph.D., Lily May Jarvis Professor of Christian Worship
Michael A. Rynkiewich, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology
Daryl Smith, Ed.D., Associate Professor of Mentored Ministry and Christian Leadership
Catherine Stonehouse, Ph.D., Orlean Bullard Beeson Professor of Christian Discipleship
Thomas F. Tumblin, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Christian Leadership
Jerry L. Walls, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy of Religion
Ben Witherington III, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Laurence W. Wood, Ph.D., Frank Paul Morris Professor of Systematic Theology

Common Points between Asbury Accounts

Chuck Gutenson listed these 19 common points between the account of Peter Kerr and that issued by Dan Johnson:

1. the board policies mandate that the president’s review be based on agreed to performance objectives, and that these were not discussed with the president.

2. an informal, anecdotal survey was the initial basis for discussion.

3. the Chair appointed task force was given a summary of this anecdotal survey by the Board Chair which was a “cut and paste” summary made by the Chair.

4. the informal, anecdotal survey was non-scientific with the 12 persons interviewed being solely selected by the Board Chair and the interviews carried out by a consultant.

5. the result of the anecdotal, non-scientific survey presented two different views of President Greenway and his leadership.

6. the Chair appointed task force gave the president about an hour to read a 34 page document summarizing parts of the review.

7. the president had no reason to expect such a negative review and the committee’s findings took him by surprise.

8. the president was instructed to stand down from his presidential duties for the day while the review was to be processed.

9. a member of the Chair appointed task force indicated to the president that the president was being asked to resign or be fired.

10. this member communicated some of “the task force’s member’s concerns” and no effort was made to correct any miscommunication.

11. the president went home to discuss these matters with his family.

12. communications broke down after this with the president refusing to return for further discussions on that day.

13. the Chair appointed task force initially placed President Greenway on leave and this decision was extended at the subsequent Executive Committee meeting.

14. the initial announcement regarding the leave made it clear that there were no “smoking gun” issues involving ethical, moral, or legal matters.

15. the Executive Committee did not ask the president to return to meet with them on the following Tuesday.

16. the president issued a statement offering an apology for his initial reaction and asking for third-party mediation.

17. the faculty passed, by a large margin, a number of resolutions expressing full confidence in President Greenway.

18. communication since have occurred primarily through lawyers.

19. there is no one fulfilling the role of president or chief executive at the moment.

Asbury Faculty and Administration Wonder #3

The third installment:

The flurry of reports and narratives dating from 1 September 2006 has shed light on and generated heat regarding the critical situation in which Asbury Theological Seminary now finds itself. We are left with a number of questions. This is the third.

We wonder why the Faculty, Student, and Staff Representatives to the Board have not been invited to the meeting of the Board of Trustees on October 17, 2006.

According to the Standards of Accreditation, The Association of Theological Schools, Commission on Accreditation, a seminary’s "governance is based on a bond of trust among boards, administration, faculty, students, and ecclesial bodies" (§8). Moreover, "shared governance follows from the collegial nature of theological education. Unique and overlapping roles and responsibilities of the governing board, faculty, administrators, students, and other identified delegated authorities should be defined in a way that allows all partners to exercise their mandated or delegated leadership" (§8.2.2). Even though we understand that the Board of Trustees may wish to move into executive session during its meeting on October 17, 2006, given

(1) the principle of shared governance;

(2) the provision for faculty, staff, and student representatives to the Board of Trustees, and particularly the mandate given them to "represent the viewpoint of their respective constituencies in Board discussions" (The By-Laws of Asbury Theological Seminary, rev. May 2002, Article III, Section H);

(3) the report to the administration, faculty, staff, and students from Board Chair Dr. Jim Smith and Board Vice-Chair Dr. Dan Johnson that the negative assessment of President Greenway’s presidency was due to his influence among these constituent groups of the Seminary community; and

(4) the significance for all constituents of the Seminary community of a decision regarding the disposition of President Greenway’s contract,

we wonder why the representative voices of faculty, students, and staff would be excluded from the entire meeting of the Board of Trustees.

Signed:
Kenneth A. Boyd, Ph.D., Professor of Instructional Design
Allan Coppedge, Ph.D., Ralph Waldo Beeson Professor of Christian Theology
Ronald K. Crandall, D.Th.P., McCreless Professor of Evangelism and Sundo Kim Professor of Evangelism and Practical Theology
Richard L. Gray, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Leadership and Christian Ministry
Joel B. Green, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament Interpretation
Chuck Gutenson, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Philosophical Theology
Virginia Todd Holeman, Ph.D., Professor of Counseling
Eunice L. Irwin, Ph.D., Associate Professor: Mission and Contextual Theology
C. Reginald Johnson, Ph.D., Roy and Weezie Anderson Professor of Prayer and Spiritual Formation
Hugo Magallanes, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Church in Society
Tapiwa Mucherera, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Pastoral Counseling
Terry C. Muck, Ph.D., Professor of Missions and World Religions
M. Robert Mulholland Jr., Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Christine Pohl, Ph.D., Professor of Church in Society
Ruth Anne Reese, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Lester Ruth, Ph.D., Lily May Jarvis Professor of Christian Worship
Michael A. Rynkiewich, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology
Daryl Smith, Ed.D., Associate Professor of Mentored Ministry and Christian Leadership
Catherine Stonehouse, Ph.D., Orlean Bullard Beeson Professor of Christian Discipleship
Thomas F. Tumblin, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Christian Leadership
Robert G. Tuttle, Jr., Ph.D., Professor of World Christianity
Jerry L. Walls, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy of Religion
Ben Witherington III, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Laurence W. Wood, Ph.D., Frank Paul Morris Professor of Systematic Theology

Asbury Faculty and Administration Wonder #2

Now this second "wondering" from Asbury faculty and administration:

The flurry of reports and narratives dating from 1 September 2006 has shed light on and generated heat regarding the critical situation in which Asbury Theological Seminary now finds itself. We are left with a number of questions. This is the second.

We wonder why the Chair of the Board has begun the process of considering appointing an investigative committee to consider grounds for President Greenway’s termination before the Board of Trustees as a whole has had opportunity to consider the facts of this case.

Granted that President Greenway’s contract cannot be terminated apart from a recommendation from a special investigative committee and that the Chair of the Board of Trustees is the person authorized to appoint such a committee (The By-Laws of Asbury Theological Seminary, Article 7, Section E), the By-Laws are silent regarding the point at which such a committee is to be appointed. The closest analogue concerns the dismissal of faculty, the "dismissal proceedings" for which are "to be undertaken as an expedient of last resort. Only after reasonable efforts have been made to resolve issues and correct wrongs in accordance with the Seminary’s 'Grievance Procedure' and/or other appropriate administrative actions such as professional growth plans, should dismissal proceedings be initiated" (The By-Laws of Asbury Theological Seminary, Article 8, Section M).

We are hard pressed to imagine how the dismissal of a president would involve procedures less demanding than those regarding a faculty member. We are concerned that a special investigative committee might be appointed and called upon to begin its work prior to a decision having been reached by the governing body under whom the president performs his duties — namely, the Board of Trustees, meeting as a whole — regarding whether his performance merits contractual termination.

Signed:
Kenneth A. Boyd, Ph.D., Professor of Instructional Design
Allan Coppedge, Ph.D., Ralph Waldo Beeson Professor of Christian Theology
Ronald K. Crandall, D.Th.P., McCreless Professor of Evangelism and Sundo Kim Professor of Evangelism and Practical Theology
Richard L. Gray, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Leadership and Christian Ministry
Joel B. Green, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament Interpretation
Chuck Gutenson, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Philosophical Theology
Virginia Todd Holeman, Ph.D., Professor of Counseling
Eunice L. Irwin, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Mission and Contextual Theology
C. Reginald Johnson, Ph.D., Roy and Weezie Anderson Professor of Prayer and Spiritual Formation
Tapiwa Mucherera, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Pastoral Counseling
Terry C. Muck, Ph.D., Professor of Missions and World Religions
M. Robert Mulholland Jr., Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Christine Pohl, Ph.D., Professor of Church in Society
Ruth Anne Reese, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Lester Ruth, Ph.D., Lily May Jarvis Professor of Christian Worship
Michael A. Rynkiewich, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology
Daryl Smith, Ed.D., Associate Professor of Mentored Ministry and Christian Leadership
Catherine Stonehouse, Ph.D., Orlean Bullard Beeson Professor of Christian Discipleship
Thomas F. Tumblin, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Christian Leadership
Robert G. Tuttle, Jr., Ph.D., Professor of World Christianity
Jerry L. Walls, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy of Religion
Ben Witherington III, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Laurence W. Wood, Ph.D., Frank Paul Morris Professor of Systematic Theology

Asbury Faculty and Administration Wonder #1

This is not meant to stop discussion on Holiness Zones, but the faculty and administration of Asbury have apparently begun a "we wonder" series addressed to the board. Here is the first:

_______________
The flurry of reports and narratives dating from 1 September 2006 has shed light on, and generated heat regarding, the critical situation in which Asbury Theological Seminary now finds itself. We are left with a number of questions. This is the first.

We wonder why President Greenway has yet to be invited to the meeting of the Board of Trustees on October 17, 2006.

We understand that, because President Greenway is on indefinite leave of absence without presidential duties, he cannot attend the called meeting of the Board on October 17, 2006, without an invitation from the Board. Since the sole purpose of this called meeting of the Board is to address the employment of the president, how can President Greenway not be allowed to be present? Would not due process include allowing President Greenway to hear and address any accusation(s) brought against him? Will the Board be asked to render a decision regarding President Greenway’s contractual relationship with the Seminary without first having face-to-face communication with President Greenway?

Signed:
Ronald K. Crandall, D.Th.P., Dean of the ESJ School of World Mission and Evangelism, McCreless Professor of Evangelism, and Sundo Kim Professor of Evangelism and Practical Theology
Richard L. Gray, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Leadership and Christian Ministry
Joel B. Green, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament Interpretation, and Director of Greek Studies
Chuck Gutenson, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Philosophical Theology
George G. Hunter III, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Evangelism and Church Growth
Hugo Magallanes, Ph.D., Assistant Provost -- Florida Campus, and Associate Professor of Church in Society
Terry C. Muck, Ph.D., Professor of Missions and World Religions
M. Robert Mulholland Jr., Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Ruth Anne Reese, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Lester Ruth, Ph.D., Lily May Jarvis Professor of Christian Worship
Michael A. Rynkiewich, Ph.D., Director of Postgraduate Studies, and Professor of Anthropology
Daryl Smith, Ed.D., Director of Mentored Ministry and Associate Professor of Mentored Ministry and Christian Leadership
Catherine Stonehouse, Ph.D., Dean of the School of the Practice of Ministry, and Orlean Bullard Beeson Professor of Christian Discipleship
Robert G. Tuttle, Jr., Ph.D., Professor of World Christianity
Jerry L. Walls, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy of Religion
Ben Witherington III, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Laurence W. Wood, Ph.D., Frank Paul Morris Professor of Systematic Theology

If you would like to add your name to this list, whether you are an alumnus or just a concerned individual: http://www.asburypetition.blogspot.com/

Holiness Zones

I am somewhat strangely teaching a master's course at IWU right now called "Theology of Holiness." It seems to be a crash course of sorts in theological anthropology, harmartiology (doctrine of sin), and soteriology (docrtine of salvation--in this case with a special interest in sanctificology, a word I just made up). It's an 8 week evening course.

To me, one of the most interesting things we discussed this past week was the matter of "holy things" and contemporary culture. For example, I love the "Green Room" venue of College Wesleyan Church, mainly because it's dark and I can get up for coffee in the middle of the sermon (I actually don't attend it right now because I lead the "cathedral service," a more high church venue where we partake of the Eucharist each week). The Green Room does not have as non-chalant an atmosphere as some emergent services, but clearly the space doesn't come off as holy as the cathedral space or even the main sanctuary space.

We were reflecting this week on Uzzah getting fried for touching the ark, of cows being stoned if they touched Mt. Sinai while its "holiness fence" was turned on because the mountain was plugged into God, of Isaiah falling on his face before God in Isaiah 6. I am not one to pine for the "good old days" when we didn't eat under the same roof as the sanctuary. I accept cultural change.

But what if it is important for every generation to set aside something, not necessarily the same things as their parents, but something that is holy. Does every generation need at least a few "holiness zones" so that they can remember what it means for God to be God?

This was one of the questions we pondered this week.

Ken Schenck signing off here, now 13 days since Asbury's board could have been called and its crisis would have been over.

To Blog or not to Blog

Ben, I took off a couple of my more incendiary posts.

I started off blogging on this topic as a distant observer, an observer from afar. Slowly I found myself drawing data from quarters far and near, much of it without my solicitation. I found myself impassioned.

Then I posted to attempt to draw out something from the silence of the EXCO. I thought that we might get them to move. That also proved not to be the case.

Two comments. First I am still willing to believe that the chair, Jim Smith, and the vice chair, Dan Johnson, are good people. Is it possible that they themselves are not even the key drivers behind their own positions?

Second, I post this comment from a high level Asbury faculty, fairly well demonstrating that charges of accreditation crisis relative to the UM church are unfounded:

"Hi, Ken,

Asbury Theological Seminary has not been put on notice with the University Senate or the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry of The United Methodist Church.
Our relationship with the University Senate over the past several years has never been better -- with cordial and hospitable visits from denominational officials to the Seminary and from Seminary administration to denominational offices. Maxie Dunnam has been serving on the University Senate, as has Dr. Hugo Magallanes, Assistant Provost -- Florida Campus. The ExL Program has been named "the gold standard" by the University Senate. President Greenway has had very positive relations with our friends in Nashville, as has one of our board members, Dr. Wade Paschal. Etc. etc.

On the particular issues you raise or that might be raised, the regular faculty of Asbury Theological Seminary is ca. 65 per cent United Methodist and the student body is ca. 60 per cent United Methodist; we are in the top ten per cent of all seminaries in the US with regard to the number of racial-ethnic professors on our regular faculty and in the last 15+ years the Seminary has had a solid record of hiring women faculty. Etc. etc.

Our relationship with the University Senate has been so strong that we have had conversations with the Senate about Asbury Seminary's being placed in a separate category --- not an official UM school obviously, but, among non-UM seminaries, practically in a category of its own on account of the number of UM students at the Seminary and its deliberate cultivation of a Wesleyan-methodist ethos. In fact, President Greenway and Provost Arnold had been invited to address the presidents and deans of the official UM seminaries later this academic year on the particular topic of nurturing a Wesleyan ethos in seminary education.

What is also important to stress -- and you have already been stressing it -- is that President Greenway has been furthering our good relations with the UM's at the same time that he has worked deliberately and diligently to connect with friends among the Free Methodists and Wesleyans, as well as other ecclesial traditions in the Wesleyan family. President Greenway has been clear in his representation of the Seminary's theological ethos as encompassing all three terms --- "Wesleyan," "holiness," and "evangelical."

Bottom line: I don't know whether there are any WMD's. I do know that this isn't one.

Alumni Coffee House Chatter

There's been a lot of discussion these last two days in the Alumni Coffee House. Several alums feel that Peter Kerr's account is very subjective and that others like me have shown a hateful and, even one person suggested, sinful attitude. I don't perceive my emotions as hateful, although you'll see I have been rather blunt and at times, angry.

I thought I might put here just some of what I've posted since Dan Johnson's post below.
____________________
"By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if when the Executive Committee brings their agenda to the broader board this time expecting it simply to rubber stamp what they've already "decided" for them (I hear the board has been run this way for years), they may just find that this group of individuals has some questions for them. Some individuals seem confident they know what the board will decide regarding Greenway... but if so, it is surprising that they weren't able to stop Greenway from becoming president in the first place."

__________________
Then I posted this in response to someone else's questions:

"Is Andringa part of the ATS board?
No, he is the former chair of the CCCU (Coalition of Christian Colleges and Universities, the organization into which Steve Moore worked to get Asbury included), apparently now working primarily as a consultant. He's had an illustrious career and is highly respected, I believe.

If so, why was he hired as a consultant?
I don't know if Peter Kerr's original claim (version 1) that the consultant had not thought Greenway the best candidate has been confirmed or not, but it seems little secret that Dr. Smith has resisted Greenway as president since before the board decided on him. I have a hunch that Smith has continued to work with this consultant because they share a common perspective on what is best for the seminary. There's nothing wrong with that (unless of course if at some point someone let the end justify inappropriate means, and I cannot judge that).

If not, why would he communicate with Peter Kerr [a faculty member of Asbury College] directly at all, let alone write a letter of censure to him and his supervisors?
This seems a fair enough question. I know Dan Johnson contacted me and we had a friendly talk on the phone after I posted some questions here. He seems like a nice enough guy and I thought better of him for doing it. I am less clear that it is appropriate for a consultant to contact someone, unless of course they felt their reputation might be at stake. Then perhaps it would be appropriate."

_________________________
Then I posted this, adding on to something said by my old theology prof, Larry Wood:

"Larry: If there is information that anyone on the Board of Trustees has that cannot publicly be distributed, I respectfully request that this be shared with our faculty leaders in confidence (our provost and deans), and if my provost or my dean confirms this confidential information I am sure this faculty would immediately support the call for the President's resignation.

Me: As I think all the alumni would. But a phrase from a different context comes to mind here: "Weapons of Mass Destruction." We await any real evidence (and more importantly, I suspect the broader board outside the EXCO is awaiting) of WMD.

Don't ask us to trust you... we want to... but don't ask us. The potential consequences and implications in this case demand a healthy suspicion, not blind faith."
_____________________

Then this in response to some questioning Peter Kerr's motives:

"While there were clearly subjective elements in Peter's initial post, I thought the broad outline of the second one had little such, even if we should find that a few details can be questioned (you will not find that I am easily distracted from the big picture by questioning immaterial details like by-law references).

And do not paint me in some pro-Greenway category. I am pro-truth wherever it will lead in this situation. If I appear pro-Greenway it is because, given the evidence with which I have been presented (and not data restricted to internal avenues), the balance of evidence pushes me in Greenway's favor. If someone will produce real evidence of WMD, I will be glad to repent in dust and ashes.

I remain open to being convinced otherwise, but will become a more and more dogged gadfly the more I smell a rat."
_____________________

I posted this from a comment here, but later unsent it because I ultimately don't know whether it came from someone with knowledge or not. A former student of mine thought it served no purpose but to inflame, so I removed it. Of course everyone had read it and several had responded to it by the time I took it off.

"Someone posted this on a domain of mine:

'Contrary to the hopes and wishes of many seminary alumni, Dr. Greenway will not be returning to his post. This fact is all but certain. Furthermore, an interim has already been selected and will be introduced to the Asbury community in the very near future. Know this: those associated with the seminary will not be disappointed.'

I wonder if anyone on the broader board outside the EXCO has heard this wonderful news? Hmmm. I think I'll forward to them so that they can know how they're supposed to vote in October.
_______________________
Then this:

Vaughn W. Thurston-Cox writes: But as far as I can tell the board is making this nearly impossible. They are handing out information that is helpful for them.

Me: And by "board" here we mean primarily Jim Smith and then perhaps key members of the EXCO. My impression is that there is little communication going on right now between this power core and the broader members of the board. I suspect they have little more information than Dan Johnson has posted here. As far as I know (and I'll admit I don't know for sure), the broader board has not seen any WMD.

I personally believe that to preserve their honor when this is all over, several of these board individuals should either resign or return to the broader board. Otherwise the suspicion of wrongdoing will linger, whether it be true or not. The foul taste in all of our mouths will remain unless Jim Smith and several others reliquish their positions of power when this is all over and at least return to the broader board. Certainly it is very unwise (I'll tone down my emotions) for a chairman with one president to continue to serve as chair with another one. This is almost policy at all Wesleyan institutions of higher learning and it is very wise.

At least that's what I believe Christ would do."
____________________

Then I posted Keith's recommendation on the previous post as "Elder Statesman Advice from Keith Drury." Some thought it was not hopeful enough, that it represented the best human option, a "lose-lose."
____________________

Lastly I posted this tonight:

"I know some think I have spewed hatred in the posts I've made, but I am actually very sad, almost depressed by this whole thing and where I fear it is heading. It's no secret that Indiana Wesleyan University has long discussed the possibility of a founding a seminary. The Wesleyans do not have their own seminary, but many of our leaders have opposed founding one for a long time because they doubted we could form one as good as Asbury. And while I think it makes sense for us to have a seminary of our own, I've never worried too much about needing one--until now.

Maybe everything else was wrong with Greenway, for all I know, but he was successful in at least one area: he reconnected with our university--the single largest feeder college of ATS--and with our denomination. He was actually scheduled to come speak at IWU at about the time the board will be meeting to determine his fate. I don't know of any Asbury seminary president who's ever done that.

Maybe I'm absurdly fretting over nothing. But knowing how ticked some key Wesleyans are about the way this has come down and myself fearing that we will have neither a miracle of reconciliation nor an even handed Drury option, I have been wondering if our church will be left without any clear option for a seminary after this is over. These are the thoughts that are depressing me tonight."
____________
So I end with the same feeling I've expressed before. The sides are well staked out, the options clear. So why isn't the board rushing to town to solve this thing? Why are they waiting to send the fire trucks when Asbury is burning?

So now 10 days since this whole crisis could have been resolved if Smith had convened the board as soon as possible.

Peter Kerr and the Consultant

Dear Friends and Alumni: (From Larry Wood)

Silence is a virtue in certain situations, but it can be wrong when a community such as ours needs to see the larger picture of an issue that concerns us as we try to do the work of God. So if silence can be a virtue, so can speaking out for what is right be a virtue as well.

It is in the interest of fairness and justice that I think it would be constructive and helpful for us to be aware of a letter from [the consultant] (the consultant that was part of the task force appointed by the executive committee to give President Greenway his evaluation) that was sent to professor Kerr's supervisors in an attempt to silence him. Below this letter I am also including a reply by professor Kerr that was sent to me because I am mentioned in it.

I requested professor Kerr's permission to post this as I wish to keep false rumors from flying around among our alumni about what is being said and for the purpose of providing information that is open and transparent so that all sides are being represented in this matter. As you can see from the comments by professor Kerr, there is no disrespect for anyone being shown and there is full respect for the governance responsibility of the Board of Trustees. Whatever decisions are made regarding this matter is to be rightly determined by the BOT. He respects that. And so do I. I will never speak against the final decisions of our Board, which is made up of faithful and good men and women who give sacrificially of themselves as they provide for the governance of Asbury. But I do hope that this open flow of information will help us all to see the larger picture. Hopefully the Board will also see the larger picture from the perspective of faculty, students, and alumni. And I hope that they will consider the policy of "shared governance" with the faculty. There is no hidden agenda here at all, but there is a call for due process so that regardless of the outcome healing can emerge.

Professor Kerr was responsible for all media relations in the DC area during the State Funeral of former President Ronald Reagan, and has had significant experience in these kinds of matters with his work at the Pentagon. We are indebted to him for his efforts to keep us properly informed on this important issue.

Finally, let me say that there has been no organized movement directed against the Task Force that I am aware of other than the faculty action which overwhelmingly voted to request the Executive Committee of the Board reinstate President Greenway's responsibilities. When students have asked me what to do, they can tell you that I've only told them to pray about it. Some students have suggested demonstrations, etc., but I personally have spoken against that. I believe prayer and the proper flow of information are the appropriate options. We await the results of the meeting of the BOT on Oct 17 in Atlanta, GA, at the airport. What they decide stands.

One final comment. If there is information that anyone on the BOT has that cannot publicly be distributed, I respectfully request that this be shared with our faculty leaders in confidence (our provost and deans), and if my provost or my dean confirms this confidential information I am sure this faculty would immediately support the call for the President's resignation. Until then, we wait....

Below are the two letters FYI:

-------------------- Original From Dr. A, the consultant for the Task Force---------------------
FYI, one of the CCCU member presidents just forwarded the two
documents sent to him and, so I'm told, to all CCCU campus presidents
(130+ American CCCU campuses. Asbury Seminary has been an affiliate
CCCU campus along with other seminaries).

I'm grateful that Dan Johnson's memo was one of the two documents,
underlining the importance of the board speaking directly to the
campus. The Peter Kerr article was his first version. He since put
out a "version 1.1" that modified some of his claims. Following that
version, Peter and I had a long phone conversation "on background"
where I gave him information that, if he were truly seeking the truth
as he says, would require him to publish version 2.0. For about a
week now, Dan Johnson (board vice chair) has had an offer to Peter
also to visit him by phone. Peter acknowledged Dan's offer.
Unfortunately, Dan leaves in the morning for a week or so out of the
country and he has yet to hear from Peter.

Although the College is a separate entity from the Seminary, few in
higher education know that. Unfortunately, it appears to me, older
and more savvy people at the Seminary "discovered" Peter and he has
become "the voice" of the opposition to the board of trustees. And
the wide circulation of his article now may well lead to national
stories and difficult questions for the College and Seminary about
free speech, use of institutional communications property for this
anti-institutional use, the ethics of Peter Kerr as a faculty member
of a Christian college (let alone a "journalist"), etc.

Thus, I am copying Peter's superiors at the College (and bcc'ing
Peter, too, as he promised his motives were to seek and report only
the truth).

This is only one of many things busy trustees are concerned about.
For those getting this who do not know, I have been a consultant to
the board on the annual performance review of Dr. Greenway. But my
concern now is even greater for the reputation of Christian higher
education. I have talked confidentially to a dozen or so national
leaders and consultants who just can't believe the situation. Of
course the board will prevail, but at what cost to the Wilmore
community.

Respectfully,
[consultant]

------------------Professor Kerr reply to his college supervisors----------------------

Dear elder brothers and sisters in Christ,

I understand Dr. A has written you a disturbing letter that expresses his concern regarding the ATS leadership impasse and how the news has spread. While I considered not responding to Dr. A’s comments, I care too much for those above me at Asbury College to allow my reputation to be tarnished without giving some context to Dr. A’s words. It is clear he is attempting to carry out his formerly veiled threats to my job and reputation, and so I believe a response is in order.

Let me start with repentance. I am sorry I placed the name "Asbury College" after my name on the narrative of events, when I should have simply said "a Christian College." I am proud to be on faculty at Asbury College, and I simply had not thought through a possible confusion with the seminary, especially since I was posting on a restricted ATS alumni website. My intention was to make it clear I was not an ATS faculty member. This error was properly brought to my attention by President Crothers and I promptly fixed the oversight. I humbly ask for forgiveness for my error, and for any inconvenience it may have created.

My motives for entering this issue have been made clear from the start. I have nothing to gain personally, but was convicted that I had to step in where I saw a grave injustice to a godly man. I promised long ago in the midst of Washington DC politics that I would always stand with the godly in their time of need. During President Greenway’s installation ceremony I was a student, and at that time we all confirmed our belief that God called Greenway to the position of President. My few interactions with him since simply confirmed to me his character and calling. Until President Greenway forfeits his calling by his actions, I feel bound by my word to support his presidency.

The ATS leadership impasse first came to my attention as I was asked to assist the ATS administration (under executive committee governance) to create a media release on the subject. I was greatly surprised at the request and immediately lent my influence to the more reasonable people who did not think dragging the external media into the fray would be beneficial. My astonishment at such a request led me to research the issue further, and I discovered what I continue to believe is an injustice aimed at President Greenway and being perpetrated by a small task force. The charge against President Greenway began as lack of performance, drifted into a vague "polarization" claim brought by Dr. A's report, and finally was leveled officially as a charge of "insubordination". I will let you read Dr. Johnson’s letter and I have attached my Version 1.1 letter for you to draw your own conclusions as to the details.

Regardless, my experience in PR and giving crisis communications training, plus seeing politics at their worst in the Pentagon, let me immediately see that the charge of "insubordination" and the subsequent silence of the task force put President Greenway in an impossible position. He could not (and still cannot) speak out because then he would seem to verify the claim of "insubordination", and the longer the silence remained the more rumors spread at the seminary that maligned his character. I wrote the narrative to give the silenced a voice, to expose what I continue to believe is an injustice, and to halt rumors against a godly man. I believe my narrative prompted the Dr. Johnson response letter that came 18 days after President Greenways’ forced "indefinite leave".

As to specific charges made in Dr. A's recent email:

First, he makes it sound like I in some way published a document to the whole seminary community, when in fact all I have done is post my findings on the "Alumni Coffee House" website that is in the First Class internet system with very restricted access. Even current ATS students cannot access the site, but I can as I am an MDIV alumnus of ATS. I have not escalated the issue from that site, and I even intercepted and convinced a local TV station not to do a story on the unfolding issue as I think it is an internal matter. I understand my writings have been given wings by other people, and my narrative of events has been publicly lauded and endorsed (and possibly disseminated?) by various tenured faculty at ATS to include Dr. Joel Green, Dr. Larry Wood, Dr. Jerry Walls, and Dr. Chuck Gutensen. Throughout the situation I have resisted slander and never mentioned a single name in a derogatory manner, and I continue to believe that the narrative I have written is a valid perspective held by many at ATS. I was surprised to discover the narrative I first posted was censored, being removed from the "Alumni Coffee House" site within a few hours of being posted. I am on good terms with the ATS PR folks, and I told them I would respect their request not to re-post my narrative, as I wish to be submissive as far as possible. However, many other alumni and faculty at ATS were surprised an academic institution would censor free speech on a restricted site, and they pressed the administration into restoring my post. I am convinced it was this censorship that made my post have such longevity, distribution, and appeal. It also allowed me to gather more facts and make good my promise to post again as more facts came to my attention. That is why I posted version 1.1 (attached).

Second, Dr. A makes me sound guilty for not trying to get all of the facts, and specifically for not interviewing Dr. Dan Johnson. He questions my integrity and motives. The truth is, everything I have done has been transparent, and I have attempted to get both sides of the story. In fact, I have written Dr. Jim Smith (the Board Chairman) three times asking for his input and giving him time to respond before my version 1.1 came out. While I intended to speak to Dr. Johnson, I already got his side of the story from his own narrative (which I applaud him for making) and from my call with Dr. A. Furthermore, Dr. A criticizes me for not publishing another "version 2.0" document, based on his conversation with me. This is an unjust accusation. During our conversation he repeatedly insisted we were only talking on "deep, deep background" or "off the record." I have nothing to hide, but he did not wish to give me any material on the record, and I will not break his confidence. Following accepted journalism practices, his chosen level of attribution means I really don’t have anything else I can publish. Furthermore, having looked into some of his answers, I do not yet find them compelling. Finally, I have been busy for this past week, and I have a full time job teaching, a part time private practice to supplement my pay so I can teach, and a part time ministry to which I am called, plus a family with young children, etc. I fail to see how one week’s delay for an interview I don’t really need is grounds to deprecate me by insinuating I am refusing to gather all the facts and questioning my integrity (specifically my stated desire to seek the truth). I can assure all parties the truth is exactly what I seek, and that I can be rather objective because I have nothing at stake in the current dispute.
Third, Dr A deftly paints me as some sort of pawn of higher powers at the seminary. This is false, and if used in a rhetoric class, I would say it was ad hominem and poor form. As explained above, I was not coerced into my actions, but have followed my conscience. I have no hidden motives or agendas, and though the vast majority of the faculty at ATS passed a resolution calling for the executive committee to immediately reinstate President Greenway, I was in no way coerced by any of them to tell the story.

Furthermore, contrary to his email, this is not about people disrespecting the ATS board. To my knowledge, no one has suggested opposition to the board at large. Many people do feel the task force (5-6 people) is to blame for the entire debacle, and that Dr. A’s report is the central instigator of the events. They would question why Dr. A’s unscientific/unrepresentative survey was allowed so much prominence and created so much disturbance, and why common leadership and feedback processes were not followed when dealing with President Greenway. I question why a man of Dr. A’s clear reputation and merit feels the need to silence a minor voice like mine, and why he doesn’t play the role of moderator and mediator to help resolve the impasse instead of being one of the primary voices in the dispute. I in no way wish to enter a spitting war here. In fact, I think there are many good people on both sides of the issue, and that we need to stop attacking each other and start attacking the issue. We need to act like the Christians we are, and stop using lawyers and board meetings and blind copy emails to settle our disputes. All I have done is try to be a giver of light. What a testimony it would be if we could have mediation and resolve the dispute on the way to "court", even as suggested by Jesus in Matthew 5.

To my superiors at Asbury College I simply wish to express my submission. I did not guess my post to the "Alumni Coffee House" would be censored and then gain such an audience. I did not act out of the desire for gossip, but instead to quell the gossip about a good man. I did not act to rebel against an authority, but instead to support one duly called and confirmed by the community. I have not acted without honor and character, nor for ill gains or motives, and I do not believe my actions reflect poorly on our college. Instead, I am a person who is willing to risk my job and reputation for the sake of conscience, truth, and the hope of eventual justice for another. I am also very open to your rebuke and advice in this matter, and if you feel so inclined as to direct me to cease my activities I am willing to set aside my free speech rights on this matter for the good of the community and our great college.

Sincerely with love and respect,
Peter A. Kerr

Latest Message from Dan Johnson

Dear Asbury Family,

I am going to be out of the country for several days, but I wanted to share my heart with you as we navigate through these troubled waters together.

I am grateful for the many members of our Asbury community who have an appreciation for the complexities of our current situation, and for the challenging role that the Board of Trustees is called upon to fill. You seem, indeed, to realize that, as the group charged by our by-laws with the chief fiduciary responsibility for the seminary, we have an awesome responsibility. Most of you also seem to appreciate the reality that in times like these, when personnel matters are concerned, persons in authority are not permitted to share all the information they have related to the situation. That is precisely where we, the Board of Trustees, find ourselves. There are a number of things that we would like to share with you, but that really is not possible, or advisable. If we could, we believe that much of the confusion and misunderstanding and speculation would dissipate, but again, we are not at liberty to do so. Please be assured that, to the best of our ability and our knowledge, we have shared with you the information we are free to share at the current time. Thanks for your understanding.

I am grateful that, during this time, our wonderful Asbury community has, for the most part, lived well into our Wesleyan heritage of "going on to perfection," in the realms of study, love, spiritual nurture and relationships. I am deeply grateful that students cherish the unique Asbury educational and formative experience so much so that they are giving their energies primarily to the preparation for ministry that God has for them. Asbury is, and will continue to be, a most remarkable place for the "shaping of our souls," for preparing women and men for the callings God has placed upon their lives.

I have been grateful for the opportunity to share in conversation with some of our faculty. This has led, in my view, to greater clarification and a decrease in misunderstanding. I believe that most of the faculty rightly recognizes that there may be more to a situation than appears on the surface. Many of the faculty have been long time friends to me personally and to many on the Board of Trustees. We have enjoyed great trust over the years, and our prayer is that this trust will sustain us and help to guide our thoughts and actions in these days. While some may choose to question the motivation of the Board of Trustees, I am hopeful that the knowledge of our long held common bond of love for Asbury will prevail.

To many of you, we, the members of the Board of Trustees, are nameless persons who show up occasionally on the Wilmore or Orlando campus. But let me assure you that Asbury Seminary is never far from our hearts, our minds and our prayers. This Board is an engaged Board, one which takes its responsibilities very seriously. It is important that you know most of us have had a long and beloved relationship with Asbury. For many of us, Asbury is the place which nurtured our souls and prepared us for ministry. For others of us, our devotion to Asbury is new, but wonderfully intense, filled with great appreciation and respect for this extraordinary institution of God. Always, we seek to act in ways that are in the best interest of Asbury Seminary.

I hope you will know that this is a Board of committed people, who, just like you, are deeply devoted to Asbury Theological Seminary. Please pray for us as we pray for you and everyone in our Asbury family. With God's help and guidance, we will come to the place we need to be.

Faithfully yours,
Dr. Dan Johnson,
Senior Minister,
Trinity United Methodist Church
Gainesville, FL 32653
Vice Chair of the Board and
Coordinator of Communications, Board of Trustees