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...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Yes, these things seem very clear to me as well. I hope that the broader board will ask these same questions of the EC. But I believe the EC itself and its chair do not plan to do anything in particular between now and the October meeting other than try to calm people like you and me. The broader board will make a decision then, hopefully taking all these things into consideration. Or as Keith has implied, they may feel that Greenway has been "defiled" and they will just hit a reset button on the presidency. As for me, I'm about ready to wash my hands...
By the way, an interesting thing occurred to me last night:
Task Force concerned with Jeff being autocratic and polarizing...
1.Jeff from Pennsylvania
2. Dunnam from Memphis
3. Board Chair from Texas
4. Vice Chair from northern Florida (=the south)
Hmmmm
One more thing I remembered from my conversation with Dr. Johnson. He did answer the question, "Why did your Q&A not mention the faculty vote of confidence?" He noted that Chairman Jim Smith was denied a chance to speak for 15 minutes before the faculty that morning. In other words, he was not given voice before them so the summary did not give voice to them.
I might note that the faculty had to close up that meeting quickly as it was to get to class. Lawson Stone mentioned to me by email that at the end of the meeting there was actually a quick vote on whether the resolution should be sent or not. He said it was sent only by one vote or something and that there wasn't much time for discussion because everyone had to get to class. I believe he was telling me this to soften the force of the faculty vote, which seems so strong in its legal form.
On the other hand, clearly Jim Smith might have talked on and on and prevented any resolution at all. Is he that smart or devious? Clearly for what the bulk of the faculty wanted to accomplish, they were wise not to allow him to speak.
Anyone who thinks that politics are not a part of any Christian institution is just flat wrong. All human machination is political. Wise as serpents, harmless as doves... that's the goal.
I just posted this in the Coffee House:
_______
As I try to make sense of the sequence of events, these data push me in the following directions:
1. Although I believe the group of 4/1 were well headed in the direction of pushing for the end of Greenway's presidency in the near future before they met with Greenway on the morning of the 31st.
2. ... they probably did not expect to be able to move so forcibly in this direction until they received data that seemed so damaging to Greenway on the evening of the 30th.
As your comments imply, it would have been stupid for them to plot to do this at the beginning of the semester. These are not stupid men. I think the data they saw the evening of the 30th in their mind indicated the end of Greenway's presidency, and they moved immediately on it (4/1).
Of course I still believe that the data itself was skewed and stacked against Greenway and that certain individuals were generally working in this direction even beforehand. But the data you mention leads me to believe that the key moment was the evening of the 30th when they realized how damaging the data potentially appeared. Thus the rumors of at least informal discussion that evening of whether Dunnam might return as interim, etc...
I don't think this was a long planned conspiracy to be sprung the 31st, although I think some were clearly working in this general direction for some time, of course believing that they had the best interests of the seminary in mind.
For those who abhor speculation, this is what will continue to happen in a vacuum. Don't tell us to stop--this is the internet age and that's not a realistic position. This is what will happen, end of story--we will continue to speculate. We are very open to being corrected by public statements and corrections.
Ken:
I hate to show my ignoance, but how are the Board of Trustees elected at Asbury? Are they elected by Alumni, are they self-perpetuating, do they receive a mandate from on high?
As an alumnus, I am obviously much disturbed by the current state of affairs. I graduated long before Dr. Greenway came (class of 1992), yet every interaction I've had with him has left me quite impressed.
I am also disappointed by the actions of the Exec. Bd.; there certainly is an appearance of forethought in just how to rid the seminary of Dr. Greenway. Yet, I'm still baffled as to why? Is it a sectarian matter? Is it a matter of personal preference in leadership? Is it all over "insubordination"? The multitude of opinions further clouds the issue. There's an undeniable mystery to all of this, and the lack of what I believe is clear communication from the Exec. Bd. makes it stink all the more.
Ken,
Can Trustees be insubordinate? To whom are the trustees in an independent school like Asbury Seminary supposed to submit? Is it only the dead people who founded Asbury and thus they are darn well free to do whatever they please? Or is there some way in which these trustees should avoid their own charges of insubordination to their own stakeholders—the alumni, the faculty, donors
I do not know Greenway, or any of the other primaries in this affair and didn’t graduate from Asbury but something up there in Kentucky surely smells real bad—and it isn’t just a result of the horses.
If in the future, we little people--the students--who will be alumni someday, have any voice in the matter of the selection of individuals for the governance of our school (which we likely won't), I would like to make a motion that Dr. Ken Schenck be put on the option ballot as potential executive board member. It is quite obvious that he cares more about Asbury, justice, ethics, and peace than most of us can even fathom. Can I get a second?
Yes, I concur that something is rotten in the state of Kentucky.
I second that motion. Ken Schenck to the Board, asap.
Might I also suggest a System Reform? Even each of the branches of our national government are required to submit to a system of checks and balances. (Eight grade American history--but, perhaps they don't teach that in the Good Ol' Southurn B'oy states. Or, perhaps spiritualized "intentions of the heart" trump fairness here??--typical of the holiness tradition). And what of Roberts Rules of Order? And what of a Margin of Error? And what of non-skewed data? This whole thing reminds me of Jesus before the Sanhedrin.
I don't really think the EC men are evil, but they do apparently have a different vision for the seminary than Greenway. The BOT is a self-perpetuating board that is technically accountable to no one else. Of course alumni and constituencies send money and students, so in a sense we are their accountability. I'm sure Greenway is not without "sin" or faults. I mainly just want him to have a fair hearing before the full board. I believe these are all people who love the Lord and want the best for the seminary.
And for those who wish I'd go back to blogging on something else. I probably will give it a rest for a while soon. Then maybe I'll have a last ditch campaign the week before the board meeting :-) or not...
(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! [For the record, I have lived most of my life in the south, so my comment is not that of a Yank. :-) ]
(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.
Post a Comment