If you haven't heard about the "wars and rumors of wars" at Asbury, you'll find the basic points in the entry immediately beneath this one. As my thoughts have given birth to conclusions, I thought I would write an "amicus brief" to the Executive Committee, Administration, and President (Greenway) of Asbury, some friendly words from an observer.
First, to the Executive Board: President Greenway should be reinstated as President as soon as possible. I cannot imagine that they had planned to remove him from office immediately in the first place, even if they were scheming for his resignation. But I may be wrong of course. He is up for a 360 review this upcoming summer anyway. Certainly his presidency has not been so great a failure as to demand immediate dismissal and the community is very, very negative toward you right now--perhaps the broader board is too!
There is no urgency to Greenway's cessation from office and much potential harm that could come of it, including loss of accreditation. For you to persist at this point in demanding his resignation, at least in my mind, either means you are perversely stubborn (so please resign, that's poor leadership skills) or you really did have something else up your sleave (as the rumor flies).
To avoid your own castration and massive fall out from Asbury's constituencies and students, you should overlook Greenway's failure to return to his evaluation and reinstate him as soon as possible.
If you really do believe that Greenway is this great a problem for the health of Asbury, you have given him fair warning of his upcoming review next summer. But now due process can ensue. Conduct a fair and objective 360 review next summer and put it to a proper vote. If there was any political maneuvering to get him out with minimal opposition, it has failed. You'll have to do it the long way.
To Greenway, and this is actually a matter for the Executive Board as well: This would be a really hard year. It would be a year with the cloud of termination hanging in the air. The temptation as President would be to do everything in your power to eliminate the forces opposing you. If in fact there is a "Dark Pope" hiding in the ranks, the temptation would be to eliminate him/her. Part of the reinstatement deal might ensure that the President did not use his power to "kill the opposition."
Of course there is the matter of Christian attitude. If the Board and President can act throughout this process with a "Love God and love neighbor" demeanor, that is what will serve the kingdom best. And of course prayer is required without question. But let's not be so foolish as to think that this is not a matter of conflicting visions and perspectives where it is appropriate for each party to do what is within their power to do to that end. Pious language about dreamy hand holding is not what will achieve God's ends in situations like this.
It goes without question that if I were Greenway I would take this year to do everything in my power to disprove false claims about me. And if I had genuine deficiencies, I would do everything in my power to show significant progress.
Finally, to the administration: I believe that the current administration largely supports Greenway. But they also have to deal with chatty people like me and a mess of disgruntled students, alumni, and Greenway fans. They should not repeat the mistake "they" made yesterday--I don't know who "they" are... it might just have been one individual. Yesterday they removed an alumnus' post on his understanding of the situation (someone posted it anonymously as a comment on my entry below).
That's not smart. In this internet age, people are going to talk, and they are going to talk by the nanosecond. Information will get out and if you are not a part of it, it will be skewed anti-establishment. Administrations have to talk and they have to talk a lot these days. They just have to deal with unruly or vocal protests even if they are skewed. The best response is to "be all over it" in response, not to squash or remove. That just plays into conspiracy theories and empowers the "oppressed" voice.
So these are my recommendations for Asbury, whether they ever see them or not :-)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
As a follow up on the Peter Karr post, the VP for Advancement had reposted his document. Good move. For a rebuttal of Karr's document apparently from someone on the Board, see the comments on the previous post below.
Of course I agree on the changes in administration of a denomination, university or a seminary that have come since the dawning of the Internet age.
I’ve seen these sorts of things before--too many times actually. And if history indicates how this one will turn out it will go this way:
1. At the beginning the anonymous and stone-walling board are the bad guys and the President (Pastor, DS, GS) is the persecuted one.
2. In the middle stage people consider it a two-sided mess with fault falling on both “sides.”
3. In the end stage (5 years later) almost everyone blames the leader not the board… meaning that in 2011 they will call this the “Greenway mess” and he will take the full hit for it.
I’m not saying this is fair or just or right—just that it is almost always how it turns out.
Now this post from Jeff Greenway just a few moments ago:
"Dear Asbury Community,
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:3).
I want to especially greet those who have recently joined Asbury Theological Seminary, as well as welcome back students returning to our community. I know these first weeks of the semester have been confusing, and I am grieved that the current leadership situation has occurred at such a disruptive moment. The beginning of a new academic year is a time of fresh new beginnings, of rededicated efforts, and of hearing the stories of God’s faithfulness and provision.
Our story is certainly a testament to God’s provision, as Beth, our children and I have been overwhelmed by the love and prayers of the Asbury community. Your tangible and intangible expressions of support have touched our hearts and helped to give us God’s peace. On behalf of my whole family I want to express our deepest gratitude for your emails, cards, letters, and calls. Please know that we are praying with and for you. We have even discovered some of you have hidden culinary talents—thank you for the meals and the love that went into creating them.
As you probably understand by now, I have decided not to engage in a public debate about the current leadership situation. While I regret that this means you cannot be fully informed, I feel it is important that the institution come first, and I have hope that proper procedures and discussion will occur. I ask that you join with me in praying that God grants a just solution and a way forward for everyone. Furthermore, I encourage students to continue learning with diligence, faculty to continue teaching with excellence, and the administrative staff to continue offering their outstanding support and services upon which the whole community depends.
I believe more than ever that God has great plans for Asbury Theological Seminary; plans that will transform our lives, our churches, and our world. Please do not let events, people or any other power diminish your trust in our loving God, and His ability to redeem, reconcile and restore.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all (II Corinthians 13:14).
Blessings!
Jeff"
Well, James, apparently the Executive Board is not really talking to Greenway as of yesterday, except that their lawyer talked to him on the phone. As far as I know they have not summoned the broader board--do they have the numbers to win in that forum? So what are they doing? I'm giving them till Monday noon at least to run an announcement blip through the system. If they don't, then I'm considering posting what will no doubt be an entertaining exploration of the unforeseen consequences of leaving an institution in limbo under such circumstances. On the internet a day is as a thousand years, and by then it will have been seven thousand years since we've even had any pleasantries from them...
:-)
For the most recent and most thorough run down of events by Peter Karr, posted anonymously with support from a faculty member, see the comments section of my first post below.
I thought this was a very helpful post this morning by Dale Williams. For those who don't know Drury in strategic/conflict resolution mode, this is a wonderful example of what he so often does. Rather than just complain, Dale has set out some concrete steps toward the resolution of the crisis, most significantly one in which the Task Force rather than the Executive committee of the board take the fall.
__________________
Dale: I personally think it would be wrong to assume everyone on the Exec Board were 100% behind or supportive in their conclusions - especially putting Jeff on leave - which they published in official minutes. But we need to remember that at that meeting on Sept 1 the only narrative they heard was from the 6 member Task Force. They did not hear anything like what Peter has researched. They didn't hear anything about other incidence of leadership conflict. They knew very little of the feeling and discernment of the Asbury community at large. [at least I hope they didn't. If they did they just ignored it or felt like it wasn't significant enough to influence their decision.]
Possible scenarios?
1) As more and more Exec Committee members hear the conflicting information and narratives they request the Board Chair to have a phone conference for review of their action. He does. They reverse their action and commit to a full investigation of the matter with members who were not on the evaluation Task Force.
2) As more and more members at large of the full Board of Trustees do the same they call Exec Committee members and urge, beg, insist that they reconsider their actions. Right now this must be happening to some extent, but not to an extent to convince the chair this is the will of most of the Trustees.
3) Nothing is done until the full Board meets in Oct. That means all of the 'pressure' for Jeff to resign (coming from a tiny group of people, probably less than 10 people) has failed to produce the results they desire (They just want Jeff gone.). Jeff continues to believe God has not removed his call to lead Asbury - and this decision is reached from a host of counsel. It also means the 'pressure' being placed on the board chair and other members of the Exec Committee has failed to convince them that they need to take any other action than stand on their decision to demand Jeff's resignation and continue to negotiate that 'fix' to this leadership crisis.
4) Jeff gets tired emotionally, spiritually, physically and mentally. He, in a state of extreme depression, frustration and wounded hurt ( and possibly for the sake of his family) accepts whatever terms the Exec Board is offering him to resign and takes his family back to PA to minister there.
5) And best of all, someone - anyone - stops and listens and somehow senses the Holy Spirit convicting them of even the smallest of wrong so they might run to the cross, confess to God and others, repent and begin down a different road of reconciliation.
These are five I can think of.
One key in all of these - the Board Chair. Only he can call a new meeting of the Exec Committee.. Only he can pick a different road. If the chair would have picked up the phone the first week of Sept or picked up the phone after receiving Jeff's letter of repentance and request for forgiveness and said to Jeff, 'Let's talk' we would not be here. One phone call. If the call Jeff received on Monday - after the extended deadline - would have been from someone on the Board rather than a lawyer, can you imagine the different place our community would currently be at? Maybe we haven't reached rock bottom. Maybe that is what it takes? In all our lives.
There have been many requests for the Exec Committee to reconvene and reconsider their actions - from student, faculty, staff, alumni and I expect even Board members! Let's keep praying for a Holy Spirit break through! Rolls and waves of the Spirit pouring over, down and in the lives of all of us.
I'm interested to see the effect such a situation as this has on enrollment for next year at ATS. I am currently looking to apply to grad schools/seminaries, and if I can be flat out honest, this is the kind of stuff that makes me steer clear.
Personal opinion: it seems really unwise to leave Asbury in limbo like this. It's like stopping the ambulance at Dairy Queen while someone with a gunshot wound slowly bleeds to death in the back. Well, at least it's a little like that in the back of my mind...
The Asbury "situation" is the most retarded thing ever. That's about all I have to say about that.
Russ Gunsalus just said something in my doorway that I thought was really memorable. I have a big mouth, as many will know. If I think I see something--whether I really do or not is a different matter, of course--I tend to voice my opinion. I didn't used to. But as I've felt more an more secure in my place in the world, I have talked more. But I also recognize that many things I say and do could be interpreted politically. Is he really pushing a seminary because he wants to be Dean of it? Those kinds of second guessing questions that you do once you realize that the world proceeds by the complex interactions of power structures. In such a world, you could actually get paralyzed and not do anything simply because someone might interpret it as "just being political."
So here's Russ' quote, full of wisdom and a good statement of how I feel on this subject:
“Everything can appear political so you just have to do the right thing.”
My hunch is the longer the ATS ExBoard can delay any resolution the greater the chances that Greenway becomes toast. Thus, to eliminate Greenway all they need to do is order another Banana Split at the Dairy Queen and let Greenway bleed to death.
Could Greenway could survive by helping the ExBoard save face... by changing the subject? Perhaps he could do his own 360 and produce a rip roarin' extensive (and public) self-study suggesting the 15 areas where he intends to improve in the future (sorta’ like the Pope’s recent apology?). If he did that it might provide a porthole for the ExBoard's egos to squeeze through and escape the conflict?
Then again, if he has counted the votes he could simply stay at home and wait—maybe it will turn out to be a gigantic shootout at the O.K. corral and Greenway’s got more guns? But, boy, that would be a costly shootout.
Seem to me a Greenway-produced self-study might be a gambit worth trying? Who knows… the longer it goes on the more weary people become and they “just want it to end.” When the majority is war-weary they sometimes just dump everyone who is troublesome and start fresh. In that case who could ride into office on a clean horse to take over?
And now this from the Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees:
________________
September 18, 2006
TO: Asbury Community
FR: Dr. Dan Johnson, Vice Chairman, Asbury Seminary Board of Trustees
I know the confusion, sadness and frustration that many carry regarding all the speculations about the future of Dr. Greenway and the leadership of the board of trustees. I also know of your hunger for more information. Many emails and reports from campus reflect a tremendous amount of misinformation, as well as many differences of opinion on the same set of facts. Our board chairman, Dr. Jim Smith, asked me last week to help him by focusing on critical communications needs. You should know that all of the board officers have reviewed this and feel that it is time to give you as full a report as we are able.
Logic often does not trump emotions, but I am witnessing community dynamics that belie what we believe about relationships, seeking the truth, thinking better of others than ourselves, and trusting the Holy Spirit’s work through those in authority. I do want to offer some education, information and logic that may slow down more emotional reactions to the dilemma we are in.
1. What is the authority of the board?
Our bylaws provide for a board of trustees, a maximum of 38 people, now made up of pastors, business leaders, attorneys, Bishops in the UMC, leaders in the Wesleyan and Free Methodist denominations, and other professionals, all volunteers devoted to Asbury who meet but twice each year. The executive committee, consisting of 14 trustees, meets four times a year. The board has the legal and moral responsibility to hold the well being of Asbury in trust. Each of us has a five-year term and can be re-elected without limits according to our current bylaws. We elect a chairman, vice-chairman and secretary for three-year terms. One of our biggest responsibilities is to recruit, appoint, encourage, evaluate and, if necessary, terminate presidents. While input from faculty and others is important, we alone bear the awesome responsibility for this function, along with many other responsibilities.
2. What is the annual presidential performance evaluation process?
The bylaws provide that “the President shall be evaluated annually by the Executive Committee and committee chairs in executive session at its fall meeting. The evaluation shall be conducted by the Chair of the Board.” Since Dr. Smith became our chairman, he has sought much advice on how best he should “conduct” this evaluation. We all learned that (a) annual performance reviews are a good practice for all boards to do for their CEOs; (b) the main purpose of the evaluation is to help the president improve his leadership and effectiveness; (c) they are also helpful in aligning the board and the president on institutional goals and priorities; (d) there are a hundred ways to do them and each board/chairman determines what approach is best each year; (e) they are usually conducted with considerable confidentiality so misinformation does not undermine the benefits to the president and the board; (f) increasingly boards are asking for some input from those around a president, not depending on trustee input only.
3. What happened with this process in 2005?
Dr. Smith invited Bob Andringa, then president of the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities, one of Asbury’s affiliations, to assist him and the executive committee. The board had already approved the use of a task force consisting of the officers and two former board chairs. During that process, after reviewing trustee input, Dr. Greenway’s written self-evaluation and a few hours of dialogue with Dr. Greenway, the task force made recommendations to the executive committee.
4. What was different about the 2006 evaluation process?
Again, the full board had approved the use of a task force and understood it was the chairman’s role to conduct the process. Dr. Smith again invited Dr. Andringa to assist, this time wanting what has become popular in many organizations, the so-called “360 degree” evaluation. The same task force of officers, two past chairs, and the addition of the trusteeship committee chair, was called to Asbury for the review of documents and dialogue with Dr. Greenway on August 30-31, in time to make its report to the executive committee on September 5 at its regular fall meeting. To gather names for a pool from which a reasonable variety of people would be asked for their input, chairman Smith invited Dr. Greenway and members of the task force for names of administrators, faculty, staff, students and others. An equal number from Dr. Greenway and from task force members were selected to provide confidential written input. Not all suggested were included, of course, so no one would be sure who was involved. Dr. Smith provided twelve names to Dr. Andringa and asked him to conduct phone interviews with those people, some of whom were suggested by Dr. Greenway and some by task force members. We knew that there are hundreds of different software packages, forms, articles and philosophies about 360 evaluations, but the chairman chose a rather basic approach.
5. Isn’t the formal evaluation to be conducted triennially?
Yes, the bylaws provide that the full board (not the executive committee) provide for a formal evaluation every three years. While this requires a “formal” evaluation, the same bylaw does not preclude whatever range of informality or formality a given chairman might chose in fulfilling his responsibility to “conduct” the evaluation.
6. What were the recommendations, goals and priorities on which Dr. Greenway was to be evaluated?
The three recommendations in the fall of 2005 asked Dr. Greenway to work with an executive coach to help him in his first presidency in academia; to work with a professional consultant in fund-raising, a major role of the president; and to provide a way for employees to express their concerns in a way that would not be threatening, with our suggestion of using an outside, web-based survey used by many Christian universities called Best Christian Workplaces.
The goals and priorities had to do with Dr. Greenway’s use of time in fund-raising; his leadership in building relationships with the board of trustees; encouragement to develop a leadership style that encourages others without being autocratic; encouragement to provide leadership in all matters relating to the recruitment and hiring of new faculty; leadership in strategic planning; lead the seminary in the emphasis on “head and heart going hand in hand”; support the leadership of the Chancellor in the Marketplace Leadership Initiative for laity; and encouragement to put a priority on his personal and family life.
7. What were people asked in the 360 portion of the evaluation?
There were five open-ended questions given to those selected to be in the 360: (1) How would you describe President Greenway’s leadership? (2) What specific advancements in the Seminary’s life (list of all areas) would attribute primarily to President Greenway’s leadership? (3) How would you describe President Greenway’s relationships with the following groups with which you are familiar (faculty, staff, students, trustees, alumni, donors, friends of the seminary)? (4) In what areas of presidential leadership would you hope that President Greenway could improve? (5) Additional comments?
8. What were the responses?
Naturally, we want to honor confidentiality and it would not be fair to Dr. Greenway nor serve the purpose of this open memo to go into details. But you can be sure that there were two very different views of Dr. Greenway’s leadership that emerged. With such open-ended questions for those in the process, and fairly subjective recommendations and priorities for this year addressed in Dr. Greenway’s self-evaluation, there was room for different conclusions. The task force reviewed a summary of trustee and non-trustee written feedback prepared by Dr. Smith, essentially a cut and paste from the responses. We also had a six-page written summary of Dr. Andringa’s phone interviews (which averaged 45 minutes each). What remained to be done was the anticipated lengthy conversation with Dr. Greenway about last year’s report, his self-evaluation, the 360 inputs, and his thoughts on priorities for the coming year.
9. What did this year’s task force finally recommend?
The task force had Dr. Greenway’s self-evaluation and the summaries of the 360 evaluations. The critical piece of lengthy dialogue with Dr. Greenway did not happen, so the task force was not able to complete its work and develop recommendations or priorities for the year ahead. August 31 started the beginning of the total breakdown in communications between the president and trustees.
10. So what happened to break up this process?
Very briefly, because the two summaries of the external evaluation responses were 30+ pages, the task force agreed on the night of August 30 that it was only fair to Dr. Greenway to give him a chance to read them the next morning before the planned discussion. Soon after 8:00 AM Dr. Greenway joined the task force, heard our rationale for inviting him to return to his office for an hour or more to review what the task force received the night before, and then return for the dialogue. As he left the room, one member of the task force left with him, to the great surprise and concern of the rest of us. A few minutes later we asked that person to return and expressed our deep sense that he violated the process. Later he asked for our forgiveness, which we granted. Evidently this trustee signaled enough of the task force members’ concerns to Dr. Greenway that he opted to call his wife, later leave his office, and through two voice mails indicated that he intended to resign and would not meet with the task force or the chairman. You can imagine our shock. We spent from about 9:00 AM to 2:30 PM trying to figure out a way to gain conversation so our task could be completed. Dr. Greenway understandably was in a very emotional state (as he acknowledged in apologizing later for certain demands that we felt to be exorbitant). The conversation among task force members naturally turned to questions such as “What do we do if he does resign?” “How do we interpret his refusal to meet with us?” and “What happens when we can’t finish our task of completing the evaluation for the executive committee next week?” We reviewed our bylaws again, asked the trustee closest to him to try to persuade him to return, and sought other counsel by phone. It was their recommendation to call a special meeting of the executive committee and place Dr. Greenway on leave.
11. What happened after this task force meeting?
The chairman called a special conference call of the executive committee for September 1. All 14 trustees on the committee were on the call. As you can imagine, many trustees were in shock over this “insubordination” and Dr. Greenway’s representation to others that this was a flawed evaluation process. The executive committee decided to place Dr. Greenway on leave without presidential duties, but with continued full compensation and benefits, and anticipated a full discussion of the matter at their previously scheduled meeting on September 5.
12. What happened next ?
Dr. Greenway did not want direct communication with the chairman or the executive committee. We worked with Dr. Andringa and others in checking out useful solutions. SACS and ATS were notified. Chairman Smith stayed on campus to meet with the leadership team, faculty, students and staff to explain why Dr. Greenway was placed on leave. Then we prayed a lot, as most on campus did.
13. What happened at the executive committee meeting on September 5?
All 14 members were there. Except for attending the chapel, led by Dr. Kalas, the committee spent the day discussing all aspects of the situation. Since Dr. Greenway continued his stance of not meeting with the executive committee, we had to assume his earlier statements about resigning were still in his mind. Some wanted a full board meeting called. We agreed that Dr. Greenway had sought information on what severance agreement might be acceptable, so approved a very generous multi-dimensional package should he make that decision by noon, Friday, September 8. We also passed a comprehensive resolution 12-2 continuing his leave, providing for interim leadership, etc., which was shared with the community. All of us knew we were in troubled waters, new to all of us.
14. What has happened since September 5?
On Friday, September 8, working through his attorney, Dr. Greenway asked for an extension of the deadline until 5:00 PM Monday, September 11. The chairman asked the seminary’s attorneys to engage in the typical process of starting with Dr. Greenway’s long list of requests and trying to move toward something acceptable to all. Monday night came and the chairman decided that so long as the attorneys were talking, it was best for everyone to let that process play out. We know that among the 4300 degree-granting colleges, universities and seminaries there are at least 700 new presidencies each year. Some presidents are terminated by the board, but a more usual departure under these circumstances is a voluntary resignation, sometimes due to “irreconcilable differences with the board.” Here certain differences certainly exist. Many trustees found Dr. Greenway’s behavior insubordinate and wished to proceed with termination, regardless of what the performance review showed. There were lots of opinions on the board and surely we saw or heard of many opinions from the faculty, staff and students.
15. Does our consultant, Dr. Andringa, have a conflict of interest?
Sadly, some have suggested that Dr. Andringa had a hidden agenda as a friend of Steve Moore’s, our former Senior VP. This is without merit. Dr. Andringa has written three books on governance and one on presidential transitions. He is a nationally known governance consultant who has spoken to our full board. He also knows accreditation issues through his appointment by the U. S. Secretary of Education as chair of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity. When asked about his relationship to Steve Moore, here is part of his answer: “I have known Steve, along with hundreds of other senior executives in 175 campuses which are part of the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities, since he was a VP at Seattle Pacific. In recent years, I had calls from executive search firms about Dr. Moore’s abilities to serve as president for a couple of our undergraduate campuses. I have been with him on a personal basis maybe three or four times over the last 12-15 years. Frankly, I don’t recall knowing that he was a candidate for the seminary presidency until after the fact. I imagine he is happily situated now as president of a great foundation and I could see no way that he would or should return to Asbury.” In sum, that rumor has no basis.
16. What about the rumor some of Maxie Dunnam’s friends want him back?
A lot of trustees still admire Maxie. But he left when he wanted to and we as a board made the decision to hire Dr. Greenway. We did retain Dr. Dunnam as Chancellor, especially to focus on continuing his relationship with major donors. He has done well. Much of this year’s very good development report was due to Dr. Dunnam, some bequests, as well as to Dr. Greenway’s hard work.
17. What is Dr. Greenway’s status right now?
He remains on leave without presidential responsibilities for people, programs or budgets. Soon after the executive committee continued his leave, he was communicating that he would never resign, that he felt his call to Asbury was still unfulfilled, that some trustees should resign, etc. But at the very same time, his attorney was continuing discussions for more than seven days on what the board would agree in severance benefits should he resign voluntarily. We recognize that many leaders, concerned for the welfare of their families, might choose to pursue all their options at the same time under these circumstances.
18. What are the next steps?
While these uncertain negotiations were going on, the chairman told us that the full board would need to meet prior to our mid-November meeting, whether Dr. Greenway resigned or not. Technically, the executive committee could act for the board on accepting the terms of a resignation. But only the full board can terminate a president. The bylaws also allow any seven trustees to call for a special meeting, which must be held between 10 – 45 days from the call. That was done and a meeting will be held prior to October 23. We don’t yet know what the specific agenda will be, but to terminate a president our bylaws require the chair to appoint a special committee of two trustees, one faculty member and one administrator to meet with Dr. Greenway and to make a report to the board. This process has not yet been initiated. We continue to pray that God will open all our eyes to a better solution. Yes, time is short and our chairman, who is the board’s “manager,” has some difficult decisions.
19. Why didn’t the board communicate these things earlier?
Try to put yourself in our position. Our goal is to keep Asbury preeminent in theological education. The reputation we enjoy can be fractured so some will not want to work or study here. Our goal is to make presidents successful, not hang out dirty laundry detrimental to any individual. We held out hope for direct communications between Dr. Greenway and our chairman, with whom Dr. Greenway has said he would not meet. We wanted the negotiation process to have the time it needed and the attorneys were insisting on as little public communications as possible. We prayed for solutions we could not see on our own. Plus we are all learning our way. This unusual situation does not happen every day.
20. Who is in charge of the campus now?
Like many transitions in other institutions, the board has placed its confidence in the professional staff of the seminary to carry out their work in a professional, God-honoring way. The executive committee also instructed our chairman to be available to the Leadership Team and he will spend sufficient time on campus and on the phone with them. Dr. Smith’s church has graciously allowed this. He asked Pete Cates to be his liaison when he is not on campus, although that is far less than fulfilling the president’s role.
21. Can we expect further communications from the board?
We will try to keep the community informed of all important events, understanding that we are very hesitant to create significant personal problems for any individual. A lot of what has happened and will likely happen is best kept within proper bounds of confidentiality. I’m sure everyone will understand and respect the importance of these ground rules. I will be guided by the need for information that comes through the administrative leadership on campus.
22. What should concerned faculty, staff and students do?
I understand your deep concern and the human desire to “do something.” But we are a Christ-centered educational community. We have clear biblical principles about rumors, gossip, judging others, gathering good information, believing the best in others, etc. I do urge those of you prepared to lead us back to biblical principles that stand out during stressful times to do so.
Of course, we need your earnest prayers. God can and will redeem this story to His glory.
Just a couple of thoughts on Asbury....
Sorry to remain anonymous!
1. I believe that both are acting in a manner that they believe to be best for Asbury. I think that they believe that their strong unwaivering stance is needed because the future of Asbury is at stake.
2. It seems odd to me that the original post from the board on September 1st (later revised to show Sept 2nd) stated "This leave in no way reflects improper behavior or indiscretions." The claimed act of insubordination had already taken place when this statement was posted. It was not until the September 5th community email there was "cause" associated with the President's leave. If the insubordination was such a "shock" and inappropriate move why did the board post that the President had not acted inappropriately?
3. I would suggest to this blogging community that the starting point of this conflict was not the Presidential evalution, but perhaps a historical conflict (years) between the role of the president and the role of the board accentuated by diverse visions for Asbury's future. Thus, I would go as far to say that this is not personal, but rather 'role' focused. I do not think it would have mattered who was choosen for the Presidency 2 years ago there would still have been this cultural polarization.
Ken - I liked your point that the very process by which reviewers were selected for the 360 could cause a polarized response when there is a fundamental disconnect in vision.
I find this document from Dr. Johnson, Vice-Chair of the Board, nothing short of stunning. (1) Why do we read nothing of President Greenway's encouragement for the process to move forward through mediation? Why has the Executive Committee of the Board refused this option? (2) Why do we find no hint of an admission of error in the review process and/or actions of the Executive Committee of the Board? (3) Why does Dr. Johnson mention President Greenway's lawyer without observing that the Board Chair has made plentiful use of the Seminary's legal counsel? (4) Why does Dr. Johnson simply fail to answer the question that he himself raises whether Maxie Dunnam is waiting in the wings to step into the president's office? ...And this is only the beginning of questions that could be raised! Very disappointing, Dr. Johnson!
Post a Comment