.jpg)
.jpg)
|
Home
News
2012
July Headlines
|
Walla Walla University Presidential Search: What Went Wrong?
Submitted: Jul 10, 2012
By AT News Team
Dr. Alex Bryan, senior pastor of the campus church, was nominated by the search committee to be the next president of Walla Walla University, as Adventist Today has previously reported. Last week the board of trustees voted not to accept the recommendation of the search committee, a rare and surprising outcome. The decision has resulted in many angry responses and criticism of the board and its chair, North Pacific Union Conference president Max Torkelsen.
Torkelsen has issued a statement in response to the questions and comments which was posted on the union conference’s web site today. “Many are seemingly eager to share incomplete or faulty information,” he said. In contrast, “my observations [are] based on firsthand participation … throughout [the] process.” He had “sought to make the process as transparent as possible [with] input and observations from a variety of viewpoints.”
The statement reveals a divided governing body. “When the name of Pastor Alex Bryan … was formally submitted” at the July 1 meeting of the board, “two distinct groups voiced their opinions strongly. One was adamantly against his nomination and the other just as passionately in favor.”
Torkelsen’s statement surfaces as reality a nasty rumor that has circulated for the last week. “An anonymous email listing alleged issues that would purportedly disqualify him for the position” was circulated. Sources who have seen the email have told Adventist Today that it contained dishonest and unethical allegations. Torkelsen does not explain why people qualified to serve on the governing board of an accredited university would pay attention to an unsigned email or letter. Sources have told Adventist Today that this suggests serious ethical failings.
“Pastor Bryan personally responded to each negative allegation from the anonymous email” in a written statement that was given to the board members. “Faculty and staff personally acquainted with Pastor Bryan’s … ministry expressed their unequivocal support.” Torkelsen’s statement does not seek to explain why this was ignored by two-thirds of the governing board, although he does note that “some suspect undue and unjustified political pressures at work” and admits that “there were indeed many efforts to sway the [board] toward a particular viewpoint.” He reveals that 25 of the 29 members of the board were present on July 1 and the vote was 9 in favor of the nominee and 16 against.
“The vote which failed to approve Pastor Bryan was in no way a confirmation of the allegations raised in the anonymous emails and rumors,” Torkelsen said. “In fact, the Trustees felt Pastor Bryan’s written responses” completely knocked down the anonymous charges. “But the board also recognized that Pastor Bryan’s name had become a polarizing factor [in the] constituency throughout the Northwest and beyond.”
“I believe the key reason Pastor Bryan was not elected,” Torkelsen’s statement concludes, “is the fact that the Trustees recognize that being president of a university is a very complex administrative task, and he has no previous educational administrative experience.” This hints that other issues were operating within the governing body.
Torkelsen also stated that the board voted appreciation for Pastor Bryan’s ministry at the University Church and that he “has my support and that of his conference president, Robert Folkenberg [Jr.].” Steve Rose, vice president for finance, is the interim chief executive for the institution.
“This leaves the campus and the community deeply wounded,” a long-time Walla Walla resident told Adventist Today. “It seems like some who claim to have a pious agenda are willing to use any kind of illicit tactics to push their views. And there is a question about the wisdom of some of the decision-makers in this situation.”
“I urge each of us as Northwest Adventists to follow the Apostle Paul’s good counsel to focus on what is true and of good report, on fact and not fiction,” Torkelsen ended his statement. “May the grace of Christ attend all that we do and say.”
The full statement by Elder Max Torkelsen is available at: www.gleaneronline.org/news.html?wsnID=11650&cat=12
________________________
Share your thoughts about this article:
Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register
Having said all this, could this be a case of church leaders taking a highly popular, successful, and inspiring pastor out of his realm and promoting him to what could be a position in which he would be less suited and effective? I don't know, but I have seen so many wonderful pastors being taken away from their best work and put into positions of less importance but higher on the perceived success ladder.
For example, I don't recall seeing information or a discussion why certain persons on the staff of AT were selected and why a its top man before the current editor either resigned or was deselected.
It will be in just as much trouble if we let the so-called "progressives" take over.
we won't be burned at the stake!
http://tinyurl.com/7stsoxd
That was what Penn State said of Joe Paterno and Sandusky; except for a minor problem.
You are suggesting that a sexual predator who has confessed to his actions, should be the president of WWU? Maybe he could then ask Sandusky be the men's dorm administrator. Where 'ya been?
To me, the theological issues are beside the point. It does not sound like Pastor Bryan had established a reputation as an academician. I don't understand why a college or university that wants to be respected for sound scholarship and teaching would look, for its president, to an individual would would appear best suited for Director of Advancement and Development. I suspect that the search committee's decision was made for the wrong reasons and the Board's decision was also made for the wrong reasons.
seems, as a pastor. One can be successful in some areas and deficient in others. It depends on what the board was looking for, and maybe in the wrong places.
If you wouldn't say it about your wife, mother or daughter, don't say it here.
Speechless, with so much to say, yet soundless.
Freddy, i hope your professors are following your comments here....
I fear a hundred lifetimes of seminary may not suffice.
Wow.
- Dr Pipim admitting to have an extra-marital affair with a young 20-something woman in Botswana.
- Dr Pipim was stripped of his position in the Church and disfellowshipped - i.e. he currently is not even a member of the SDA Church. Dr Pipim agreed with this course of action - saying that he deliberately asked for the harshest Church sanction possible to demonstrate that such sin should be taken seriously.
- Dr Pipim wrote some 21,000 treatise trying to justify his actions, including why he didn't come forward until he was caught out - check out his own website if you don't believe me.
- After about a year, Dr Pipim was going to be re-baptised.
- A few days before his rebaptism, another women came forward. When confronted, Dr Pipim admitted it was true. The pastor who was going to offiate cancelled the re-baptism - the letter from the pastor can be viewed on the Spectrum website.
As Dr Pipim is not even a member of the SDA Church, I fail to see how Dr Pipim could seriously be considered for any post in the SDA Church, which he now doesn't even belong to, let alone a very high office as president of a University. Moreover, regardless of whether the moral falls, which again Dr Pipim has wholly admitted to, were rape or not, at least demonstrates that it would not be wise from the perspective of Dr Pipim's own care and benefit to put him in a role where there are lots of young people.
Therefore, whether ot not Dr Pipim is a sexual predator is not relevant. It is respectfully obvious that Seminary Student's suggestion is wholly absurd, and no rational person who took their role of appointing the President seriously could entertain such a proposal.
But the fact remains, he is not even an SDA member anymore. He has serious personal and moral issues he needs to work through honestly before he can become a member of the SDA Church again, let alone be a leader to others.
To the Seminary Student:
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. Everyone is not entitled to his own facts.
Maybe there should be FactCheck here.
A PhD qualifies you to teach theology, a D Min qualifies you as an evangelist, missionary, pastoral counsellor, spiritual guide, or church administrator. It also qualifies you to teach others in those fields. I believe we need more people with the latter degree than the former. I am nearing the end of the process of getting a PhD, so I don't in any way disdain academic qualifications, but I do very much believe in appropriate qualifications. Someone with a DMin and experience in the academic world, as well as with administrative experience, could make as good a college or university president as someone with the same experience and a PhD. Had I been on the board, the lack of such experience would have been my main concern. There is a world of difference between running a church - even a large one - and running an education institution.
Editors, please remove the Seminary Student comments from this post. This is so scandalous that it discredits any real conservatives and it begins to make me believe it is a tasteless attempt at humor. It it is NOT then it is pathology. In either case please edit this out of here, it is trashing a serious discussion.
For the record, I am not 'conservative' but probably a 'moderate' (as much as labels mean anything), but I do strongly respect the right of conservatives to have a voice, even when they say things that I feel objectionable and outright ignorant.
Therefore, I think Seminary Student has every right to make comments, provided he does not use offensive language. He may say things that are completely ignorant and stupid, and things I 100% disagree with, but he should have a 100% right to say it. I can somewhat empathise with our more 'conservative' readers and contributors, who no doubt can see a perceived double-standard here. And again, I am not 'conservative' myself but even to me the double-standard appears obvious.
believe it. Do you not believe his own confession? Why would he have admitted a heinous act if it were untrue?
A hint -- if a person has left the SDA church and continues to deride it I doubt I can learn anything constructive from him.
I also agree with you that when ultra-liberals make these comments, even when they are rude and objectionable, they are often ignored by the moderators, perhaps out of fear as looking too heavy handed. Yet when someone is very conservative, there is suddenly this call to remove the comments. Have a look at the outright name calling on the homosexuality-related articles as a good example.
For the record, I am not 'conservative' but probably a 'moderate' (as much as labels mean anything), but I do strongly respect the right of conservatives to have a voice, even when they say things that I feel objectionable and outright ignorant.
To further the metaphor, the patient remains alive, nothing has been damaged in treatment, but time has been lost and egos have been bruised. Insofar as selecting a president is a venture in maintaining and improving the health of an institution, I think the analogy stands: What went wrong? The WWU Search Committee did its diagnostic work of the presidential needs of the University, and to be rebuffed in this way suggests at least vaguely some kind of crisis of communication within the body of the university—as if the signals being sent are being misperceived, or perhaps even ignored, or that there is a serious pluralization of opinion regarding the course that is best to take in Walla Walla's future.
I see no immediate problem with the process, or the fact that the process has revealed interesting things about the college and its board. But certainly the vote is a shocker, to the North Pacific Union constituency, to the students, to the faculty and staff, and to the alumni. Making lemonade out of a lemon of a situation will undoubtedly become a staple industry at the univeristy for some months to come...
and I wish my alma mater well... This too will pass.
Purely conjecture, and speculating now, because I do not know what issues were salient to the sudden reversal-but this may be round two in the coming battle of education vs the hand of the GC (or the unseen hands that pull the strings). Surely anyone who has done any research, even as rudimentary as goolge, and plugged in the names "Bryan" and "spiritual formation" can see the same sort of debacle as surrounded the evolution/creation "debate" @ LSU. There are many within Adventism (and many at the fringes) who will use the court of public opinion to sway the governance of "their' church the way they wish it to go at the moment. Testament to this is the numerous-and vociferous-websites and Youtube links published out here, in anonymity (and strange unanimity) extolling the virues of their particular ideologies/theologies and vilifying a common target.
Whomever gets the nomination now-if anyone chooses such a polluted and tepid pond for what is surely a baptism by brimstone-will have a very difficult time. I'll venture to further guess that, atm there are many looking for a reason to leave this church, and this may work for their rationale. Not suggesting it's right or anyone ought, but it is a reality. After all, Bryan is (was?) an effective pastor for the Conference and the university church. I'd not be surprised that he'd at least take some form of 'sabbatical' starting yesterdaY...
That fact you are a seminary student is a little worrying - or is that a joke as well?
I don't know how often you post here or other similar blogs but sadly, your comment was not too unusual as after the news about Pipim was made public there were many supporters who not only disbelieved but that he was being railroaded by disgruntled folks.
Some practical jokes are not only not practical but can do harm--for those who did not see your retraction. If this is your idea of a joke, you may not be believed in the future when you wish to be taken seriously.
It is my perception that the far left enjoys more freedom on this blog and that of Spectrum to engage in ad hominem attacks and belittle conservative views, while a conservative may be told to bug off if he steps over the line. You have made some observations with which I agree.
Nonetheless, I don't want to offend anyway, and if people have taken my tone at all as either 'shrill' or bullying, and keeping in mind that suggest email does not communicate tone well, then I profoundly apologise. However, as you rightly observe, I have notice just a tad bit of hypocricy in the way ex-Adventists are accomodated, compared with personal attacks on conservatives, which appear to be fair game.
I am not really sure why this bothers me so, because I am certainly no conservative and I should probably agree with those personal attacks. Something about it though just grates me. I think Jack's suggestion (above) that Seminary Student's post should somehow be removed by editors, but at the same time ex-Adventists can tell us all to leave the SDA Church, really struck a nerve.
Again apologies - not entirely sure why it struck a nerve but it did. It probably also spilled over onto Stephen Foster's post on an SDA President. Apologies again.
This has become so consistent that I will ask those who continue to say the left and ex-Adventists are trying to encourage leaving the SDA church and why we continue to post here.
Name one commenter who has encouraged or tried to convince an SDA to leave the church. If questions are disturbing that goes either way. Adventists are traditionally taught to convert but when have exes ever tried to get someone to leave the church??
How dull this forum would be if everyone agreed exactly on everything. No one would feel it worthwhile but simply read the Review or the Red Books for all their information. The very fact that there are questions raised by good SDAs shows that this forum serves a wide audience. Those who are convinced they have all the truth aren't interested in these discussions.
Elaine, compare the way you and other ex-Adventists are given respect and free reign here. Then compare how conservatives such as Seminary Student are treated - there are calls for censorship.
Go to Kendra's previous post on homosexuality. Look at the personal attacks and language used on conservatives who even suggest, even if politely, that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible. Then look at how the ex-Adventist contributors are accomodated in every way.
I am neither an ex-Adventist nor a conservative. Yet I have notice that double standard. Why do you think that double-standard exists? One of my favourite texts in the Bible is Ex. 23:3:
'Do not help a poor man in a law suit.'
As a lawyer I try to live by this. The ends don't justify the means. Because this is a liberal SDA website doesn't excuse applying different rules against conservatives an ex-Adventists (who are aguably ultra-liberals). Fair is fair; otherwise it is hypocricy.
Do you realize you're making my point:
compare how conservatives such as Seminary Student are treated--there are calls for censorship"
It is not ex-SDAs or liberals who call for censorship. They are the ones who seem to believe it's "my way or the highway" while exes ask questions but do not call for such tactics. My believe about membership or ostracism: who cares? If it seems hypocritical to apply different rules, who is making the rules which you feel are hypocritical? It is simply individuals operating differently, that is what humans do.
Not sure if I follow. Jack Hoen, who I am pretty sure if a liberal and not a conservative, wrote in relation to comments by Seminary Student (see above, and for the avoidance of doubt I didn't personally agree with Seminary Student's comments):
It was so upsetting I couldn't type straight:
Editors, please remove the Seminary Student comments from this post. This is so scandalous that it discredits any real conservatives and it begins to make me believe it is a tasteless attempt at humor. It it is NOT then it is pathology. In either case please edit this out of here, it is trashing a serious discussion.
How were Seminary Student treated - was he accomodated or simply ignored (as some like Keven have argued is the appropriate response to dealing with comments we personally find offensive or irrelevant)? No, he was metaphorically lynched. Then the moderator later did edit our his comments!
My question is, one could argue that when an ex-Adventist addresses an issue, saying homosexuality and Christianity, by claiming God doesn't exist, or that Jesus wasn't a historically figure, or that Bible is not authority, one could argue that those comments are similarly 'trashing a serious discussion'.
I should really just clarify, I am sure you and the other exes aren't calling for censorship and really my concern is not with you at all. My concern is with the 'liberals' who dominate this site and who do appear to apply different standards for different classes of people. The question is:
What is it about the 'liberals' who dominate AToday, both officially and unofficially, that they seem to be more confortable with ex-Adventists than they do with their own conservative brethren?
Why are conservative comments that Dr Pipim be an SDA President comments that 'trash a serious discussion', but advocating against God, Jesus or the Bible not 'trash' but rather views that should be accomodated?
No doubt there will be self-serving responses back. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I am not a conservative, just trying to examine if 'we liberals' are more willing to engage 'liberal' ideas, even hetrodox ones denying God, yet appear necessary to censor othordox opinions?
"It was so upsetting I couldn't type straight"
This forum is not for the timid or sensitive types. This statement reveals a great deal of insecurity over one person's remarks that were not directed to you but about another individual.
This bears repeating:
]
"If you can't stand the heat, what are you doing in the kitchen"?
I haven't really entered into the discussion of bias and what should and should not be allowed. Apart from a couple of SDA forums, most forums I frequent are professional academic ones where such discussion is strictly forbidden. It is also rarely warranted, which is where there may be a difference.
All I will say is that the main reason I find it hard to identify with any group in Adventism is behaviour rather than beliefs. I find myself in the same position as Chris did re evolution: the arguments and behaviour of the defenders of certain positions do far more to persuade me to take another position than any positive arguments from their opponents. What I struggle with most is not the logic of SDA beliefs, but the fact that those beliefs seem to have so little positive impact on those who hold them. And that is not a swipe at a particular section of Adventism, as I see little difference anywhere (even in the mirror). When I look at my SDA fellow church members I see nice people, but no nicer than my 'apostate Protestant' or RC neighbours, or even than my atheist neighbours. And the way that SDAs treat each other sometimes approaches a level of nastiness that, to (mis)quote Paul 'is not found even among the pagans'. I can understand an occasional lapse - I am guilty of that myself now and then - but it happens to often to be excused in that way.
As hard as is, I try not to judge God or a religion by its worst but by its best. I don't blame Islam by Osama bin Laden and I hope I don't judge the SDA Church by its own sinful members. I hope not too many judge the SDA Church by my actions - scary thought!
You know better than me that we are all intrinsically biased. The first step in utilizing our sociological imagination to somewhat mitigate it is to admit it is there. If someone wants justice and to argue the moral high ground they must come to it with 'clean hands'.
Conservatives might be closed minded, but at least we all somewhat know that. It is liberals who think they are open minded but often can be just as biased and hypocritical. South Park laments this societal fact probably more than any other group. Their spin off the Film Actors Guild (FAG) in the Team America Movie explains it perfectly in a very modern parable.
The effort to discredit the nomination of Bryan was in full swing on the internet, weeks before it was published here. I do wonder how God views those who arrogate His truth, and send whisperings, rumor, even less-veiled slanders, anonymously, world wide, on the internet, and in the church lobbies, to effect their devisings. How much sway all this weighs on church governance is unknown, but likely signifigant.
I hope he stays above the fray, and remains connected to the vine. Some official response from him would be worthy.
Don't know. Maybe you don't.
No, Elaine, it was no joke. Freddy called it a joke to sidestep ... nor apologized.
Fortunately not everyone saw the deleted material.
Our seminaries should indeed take up the challenge of helping our students master the art of Adventist humor—a very difficult one among our membership, a good share of whom still believe the unpardonable sin consists of being caught laughing after the door of probation slams shut on its industrial-grade Case-hardened, titanium-impregnated, purgatorial hinges....(exaggeration intended, cringing encouraged). Misuse of humor by pastors in the pulpit and even by a seminary student can apparently cause untold harm....(please smile, but don't laugh!).
Have a good one....
Obviously an observation without substance insofar as my experience has been. There is crude humor and then humor that is repeatable in society. Each person has his own perception of what constitutes humor and when it is appropriate. When a Pastor is engaged in talking about a very serious matter it can be construed as inappropriate when he strains to introduce humor that diminishes the importance of the topic.