Abilene Divorce

[C J Dull]

I'm a little surprised we have not heard about this before: 

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/august/abilene-christian-university-decides-divorce-phil-schubert.html?utm_source=ctdirect-html&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_term=9492333&utm_content=299683109&utm_campaign=2013

I know there is at least one divorced (and remarried) college president among us Independents, Collins (his first name escapes me) of Point U. (the former Atlanta Christian College).  Isn't there some other prominent CoC individual that also was divorced in the last few years? 

C. J. Dull

[John Hicks]

It was reported online by the Christian Chronicle.  ACU trustees retain university's president

				ACU trustees retain university's president Thank You For Reading THE CHRISTIAN CHRONICLE All readers receive unlimited free access to The Christian Chronicle Online Edition.
				View on www.christianchronicl...	Preview by Yahoo

 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to stone-campbel...@acu.edu.

[Phillip Morrison]

C. J.,

 

Several on this list, including me, know the pain of divorce either personally or through members of our family. The best thing we can do now is pray for the Schubert’s, especially their children, the ACU trustees, and everyone directly concerned. This intensely personal and private matter should remain just that.

 

Thanks!

 

Phillip Morrison

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to stone-campbel...@acu.edu.

[DLHc...@aol.com]

The notice was also sent out to former students of the University. We got the notice several days before the Christian Chronicle broke the news. It is heart warming to me that this has not been discussed on the list. To be honest, I expected that it might. Good for us!

 

Blessings,

Doug Hall

 

In a message dated 9/8/2014 2:40:27 P.M. Central Daylight Time, stone-c...@acu.edu writes:

It was reported online by the Christian Chronicle.  ACU trustees retain university's president

ACU trustees retain university's president Thank You For Reading THE CHRISTIAN CHRONICLE All readers receive unlimited free access to The Christian Chronicle Online Edition.
View on www.christianchronicl...	Preview by Yahoo

On Monday, September 8, 2014 2:20 PM, 'C J Dull' via Stone-Campbell Group <stone-c...@acu.edu> wrote:

I'm a little surprised we have not heard about this before: 

http://www.christianitytoday. com/gleanings/2014/august/ abilene-christian-university- decides-divorce-phil-schubert. html?utm_source=ctdirect-html& utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_ term=9492333&utm_content= 299683109&utm_campaign=2013

I know there is at least one divorced (and remarried) college president among us Independents, Collins (his first name escapes me) of Point U. (the former Atlanta Christian College).  Isn't there some other prominent CoC individual that also was divorced in the last few years? 

C. J. Dull

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to stone-campbel...@acu.edu.

[C J Dull]

"Good for us"?  Sorry, gentlemen, I don't believe that nice people from our almae matres are exempt from historical analysis on a list dedicated to history.  We don't need to know all the gory details to do some historical scrutiny.  To cite a couple of examples, if this had happened 50 years ago, would the president of ACC/U have hung on to his job; I personally doubt it.  Similarly, would the presidents of more conservative schools (e.g., Freed-Hardeman) hold on to their jobs under similar circumstances?  I will defer to Alan on that, but I again doubt it.  "Private" matters do affect public matters.  All the press knew JFK was sleeping around, but they dismissed it as a harmless peccadillo.  Now every book on him invariably discusses that issue because it wasn't (e.g., Mrs. Exner,etc); among the girlfriends in  his history was one with high Nazi connections (went to a wedding of Hermann Goering).  That recklessness, unfortunately, carried over into other things.   In one of the more perceptive books on Stalin (the Court of the Red Tsar), Simon Montefiore goes into the effect of the suicide of his second wife on his policies, again not harmless.    I think one reason Point U. moved to the left was because of the president's history; more liberal faculty members do not undercut a president's status on such issues.  Nor do non-church based sources of income. Similarly, does the ACU treatment of this matter indicate a growing chasm between certain segments of the CoCs.   Theology can be affected by "personal" matters as even a cursory reading of Augustine's Confessions will attest.  Important people should not be given a pass from historical analysis;  history will not exempt them from its effects. If they are routinely exempted, that gives us a lot less to talk about.  Did the effects of Augustus' marriage to Livia Drusilla extend outside their bedroom?  Indeed, it did.

Perhaps most of all, we tend to look upon self-censorship as a negative thing.  Apparently, that view is not unanimous.  Will this event have an effect on the Movement and the CoCs in particular; I think that is very likely.  The most valid reason for not talking about it would be if it did not have any effect, and that is the very test where it seems to fail most egregiously.  Norvel Young's arrest for drunk driving was not just gossip; it was a significant historical event, on a number of levels.  This, doubtless, is not as dramatic as that, but it does not mean such will not have a significant effect.  Those who are most reluctant to comment may even contribute most significantly, n' est-ce pas,  as the French might say.  

C. J. Dull

[ahighers]

I have never met Phil Schubert, but his father and I were friends in our youth.  The divorce, of course, is tragic, and unfortunately it comes at a time when he is held up as an example to students.  I suspect more details will emerge as the matter proceeds.  These things have a way of expanding.

Sent from my iPad

[RLLay...@aol.com]

Alan,

I knew Joe Schubert and Kathy Kelley when they were just dating in school before they were married. I don't know if Kathy is still alive and well, but, if I remember correctly, Joe is dead.

Sorry about Phil's situation.

Lavelle Layfield 

[Greg Bagley]

Does being a historian trump being a Christian?

[Justin Lillard]

Greg,

Are you assuming there's a necessary either-or relationship here?  

It seems to me that it should be possible for us to discuss the historical effects of the Schubert divorce upon ACU, Stone-Campbell institutions of higher education, doctrine and practice in Churches of Christ at large, etc.  without being guilty of sin.

--

Justin Lillard, MA, MACM, MLIS
Theological & Reference Librarian/Assistant Professor
Brackett Library, Harding University
(501) 279-4251
Box 12267
Searcy, AR 72149-5615
http://www.harding.edu/library/

[DLHc...@aol.com]

Dear Brother Dull,

 

I am sure that there might be a time and place to discuss the historical significance of this tragedy later... at least wait a few years after the divorce is final. Who knows, God might engineer a turn around in the situation. We should be praying not discussing the historical impact of something that is not yet finished.

 

That's all I will write. If you want to go ahead with your discussion about this, then have it. 

 

Blessings,

Doug Hall 

[RLLay...@aol.com]

All Listers,

I do not see the benefit to discussing a very unfortunate situation that involves Phil Schubert and Abilene Christian University. Why not leave this alone and let those involved work it out.

“Let him that without sin, cast the first stone.”

Lavelle Layfield

 

In a message dated 9/9/2014 11:52:16 A.M. Central Daylight Time, jlil...@harding.edu writes:

Greg,

Are you assuming there's a necessary either-or relationship here?  

It seems to me that it should be possible for us to discuss the historical effects of the Schubert divorce upon ACU, Stone-Campbell institutions of higher education, doctrine and practice in Churches of Christ at large, etc.  without being guilty of sin.

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Greg Bagley <gregl...@gmail.com> wrote:

Does being a historian trump being a Christian?

On Tuesday, September 9, 2014, RLLayfield via Stone-Campbell Group <stone-c...@acu.edu> wrote:

Alan,

I knew Joe Schubert and Kathy Kelley when they were just dating in school before they were married. I don't know if Kathy is still alive and well, but, if I remember correctly, Joe is dead.

Sorry about Phil's situation.

Lavelle Layfield 

 

In a message dated 9/9/2014 10:45:46 A.M. Central Daylight Time, ahighe...@gmail.com writes:

I have never met Phil Schubert, but his father and I were friends in our youth.  The divorce, of course, is tragic, and unfortunately it comes at a time when he is held up as an example to students.  I suspect more details will emerge as the matter proceeds.  These things have a way of expanding.

Sent from my iPad

--

Justin Lillard, MA, MACM, MLIS
Theological & Reference Librarian/Assistant Professor
Brackett Library, Harding University
(501) 279-4251
Box 12267
Searcy, AR 72149-5615
http://www.harding.edu/library/

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to stone-campbel...@acu.edu.

[Joy, Mark]

Lavelle—you seem to assume that discussing the ramifications of a matter is casting stones.  It can easily degenerate to that, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be.  How the leadership of our schools handle a serious moral problem is of some historical interest.

 

Mark S. Joy, Ph.D., Professor and Chair

Department of History and Political Science

University of Jamestown

Jamestown, North Dakota

[Greg Bagley]

Justin,

How can we talk about the historical effects of the Shubert divorce on ACU?  Perhaps 20-50 years from now that can be discussed, at present we would be discussing current events.  Further, at present all that can be said is more speculation about the historical effects of their divorce on ACU, S-C institutions and so forth.  For me the higher calling, which this list seems almost ignorant of at times, is avoiding gossip. So, yes, in this instance it is an either-or.

Blessings,

Greg

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to stone-campbel...@acu.edu.

[Robert M Randolph]

Listers, those of us who have been aware of this situation for some months have not chosen to talk about it because

we were asked not to go public while those involved were seeking counseling and support. Now that it is public it is

clearly a case where gossip trumps information and I see no reason to spread speculation. 

Doctrine not our focus on this list and neither is gossip. I think we ought to keep it that way.

Dr. Robert M. Randolph
Chaplain to the Institute
MIT    W-11 Rm. 128
40 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA. 02139
617-258-5484

[Paul Dover]

I don’t know anyone involved in this situation so I wouldn’t be able to discuss any personal information myself. However it does appear to me that if there is a significant change in doctrine or practice at an influential institution this has historical ramifications and should be open for discussion and this is what has been suggested here. But imagine too that the Jesse B Ferguson, Sydney Rigdon or John Thomas controversies happened in our time. Obviously they would be enormously important historically and yet impossible to discuss without bringing the personalities of these men into play. Would this be permitted or would an embargo be placed on discussion for a number of years?

 

God Bless

 

Paul Dover

Nottingham, UK

 

From: Robert M Randolph [mailto:rand...@mit.edu]
Sent: 09 September 2014 22:26
To: <stone-c...@acu.edu>
Subject: Re: [STONE-CAMPBELL] Abilene Divorce

 

Listers, those of us who have been aware of this situation for some months have not chosen to talk about it because

[ancilj jenkins]

We can imagine if he later chose to remarry.

[Michael Strickland]

Paul,

I'd say that it is not technically off-limits, but in bad taste to discuss this (as Alan aptly described it) "tragic" situation. I'm not sure your parallels with Ferguson, Rigdon, etc. are all that helpful since they were promoting certain teachings that most RMers at the time rejected. As far as I know, Schubert is not trying to convince people that they need to change their beliefs on divorce.

I think a more appropriate parallel might be the subject of suicide. A few months back I posted an old newspaper article that documented the suicide of Alexander Campbell's niece. I think that is of historical interest to the list, but if a currently-living preacher went through the pain of a child or close relative dying in such a way now, it would be in bad taste to discuss it here. The fact is that the Schuberts surely have friends, and possibly family, on this list, and they don't need this drudged up on a history list. Maybe in 50 years it will be appropriate.

That is the distinction, at least to my way of thinking. 

Blessings,

Michael

[Justin Lillard]

Greg,

I'm curious if you would apply this same (let's call it a "historical cooling off period") to other issues.  Suppose, for example, that someone wished to discuss the impact of the Trayvon Martin shooting on churches or race relations?  

[Justin Lillard]

Listers,

As I (ironically enough) don't really have much to say on the topic of the Schuberts, this will be my final commentary on this topic.  My primary concern is to push back against the notion that there are things we "shouldn't" talk about.  I believe that notion is corrosive to academic thinking, as well as to spiritual health. 

Blessings to all.

[C J Dull]

I am fascinated by some of these responses.  At least I found out before it was too late that I was no longer a Christian, simply for wanting to discuss the historical importance of the way ACU is dealing with the issue of a president going through a divorce.  The details of why the couple are going through this are secondary, if not irrelevant.  The fact of the divorce is not. The reaction by ACU is the important part of the discussion, and that seems to be what no one wants to discuss.  What's that old story about the elephant in the room that no one sees?  Maybe I can join Conkin (America's Pentecost), who is a Milligan alum and an atheist. 

Divorce among us Independents has always stressed that the innocent party in any divorce can be allowed to remarry without any strings.  To some extent, it became a loophole big enough to drive a truck through and almost always was claimed.  A couple of decades ago, an expansion of this came from a surprising source, conservative scholar Jack Cottrell (in a work entitled Tough Questions, Biblical Answers, vol 2).   Jack expanded this to permit the guilty party to remarry as well following an appropriate period of repentance.  There are a number of significant people among us who have remarried following a divorce.  I mentioned president Collins before; one of the significant administrators in their night school program--whom I taught as an undergraduate--likewise has been through the process.  One name that should be familiar to most on the list, Paul Blowers, the Encyclopedia and Global History editor, has similarly been divorced and remarried.  I  could name others who are prominent preachers and scholars among us.  We have always had the concept of a biblical divorce and remarriage, which has not always been true among the Churches of Christ. 

I became sensitized to this about 5 or 6 years ago when a widow from a Church of Christ walked into my office (as a Greek professor)  and asked to talk about the Greek grammar of the passages in Matthew.  This we did at some length.  She was dating a gentleman who I think had once even preached in the CoCs.  He was divorced, and, even though it was openly acknowledged that his wife had been the guilty party, he was still wary about the thought of remarriage.  The late Firm Foundation under the editorship of Buster Dobbs  talked about divorce under certain circumstances but not remarriage.  I have a vague memory--which presumably Terry can correct--that FEWjr.  held something of a view such as that as have others.  I even queried Alan on the subject to get the response of a prominent conservative. 

One of the recurring ironies in many events such as this (which showed up on the Paul/a Williams issue recently) is the practice of posting such personal matters on websites that literally the whole world can read and asking to respect their privacy.    Waiting 50 years is essentially a statement that we effectively can never know what this is about because the context will have been lost by the time we can discuss it.  We will only know how it relates to a later period, if at all.  One of the issues I discovered from starting research on Gerald L K Smith when most people who knew him were in or close to their nineties (one of the better discoveries was given by a 97 year old woman) is the value of the context such people can bring.   Waiting for long periods invariably, to quote the President, degrades and destroys that valuable context.  This incident may be one of the few that would aid  significant comparisons between our two groups on certain social issues.

C. J. Dull

-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Lillard <jlil...@harding.edu>
To: stone-campbell <stone-c...@acu.edu>
Sent: Tue, Sep 9, 2014 6:41 pm
Subject: Re: [STONE-CAMPBELL] Abilene Divorce

[Dan Knight]

There used to be a person on this list (who probably still is but lurking) that when a certain topic came up, he appeared with generally the same observations. I don't want to be that person, but any discussion of divorce has become a hot button for me. (I posted a paper on the subject at academia.edu and it gets "hits" almost daily.)

I remember that Steve Wolfgang did an article in the RQ about Alexander Campbell and divorce. He consolidated the few times that the MH discussed the subject.

As far as I have been able to ascertain, the first time the word "divorce" appeared in Matthew 19:3, 7, 8, and 9 (as a translation of the Greek apoluein) in an English translation in this country was in the Living Oracles (1826).  When apoluein is translated correctly (as "send away") much of the heinous interpretation attached to divorce disappears.

Okay. That's probably too brief to make much sense. It's all I'll say for now.

Dan Knight


Dan Knight
Minister of Adult Discipleship
Overland Park Church of Christ
 
From the New Testament version called The Voice
Romans 11²⁹  You see, when God gives a grace gift and issues a call to a people, He does not change His mind and take it back.

---

To: stone-c...@acu.edu

Subject: Re: [STONE-CAMPBELL] Abilene Divorce

From: stone-c...@acu.edu
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 01:08:29 -0400

[Greg Demmitt]

I’ll give a brief history of the Church of God General Conference and divorce. I agree that it is to soon to assess the ramifications of what is happening at ACU and I would want to be sensitive to the human suffering that is involved.

In the COG, we had one licensed minister who was divorced and remarried in the early 20th century. However, no license was granted by the conference to a divorced minister from the mid 1940’s until we changed the license standard in 2000 to specifically allow for the license of the divorced and/or remarried. Before that time, several ministers retained their license after being divorced, but lost their license when remarried. One very popular minister was continually refused a license because his spouse had been previously married. Instead, he was licensed by the church he served and functioned in the same way as any licensed by the COG. He served two of our five largest churches during his tenure in ministry.

I became a member of our licensing board in 2004 and was part of the first decision to license a person who was divorced and remarried. We had previously created a provisional license that was granted at a church’s request for people who had not graduated from our Bible college, which had been a long-time prerequisite that was rarely excepted. We used that license for those who were divorced and remarried because it was an expressed concern that a church know the previous marital status of a potential minister.

There was a general thought that the person applying for license needed to be the “innocent party” in the previous divorce. However, none of us on the Ministerial Recognition Board were inclined to do interviews with the previous spouse in order to determine this. To state it bluntly, none of us were under the opinion that this was a valid concern. We would definitely address the reputation of the person if immorality was known, but we looked at that as a matter of character and not as a legal hurdle to cross.

One might realize from reading the above that there was an understanding on the part of some of our ministers that divorce did not end the previous marriage and thus anyone who remarried was living in a continual state of adultery. The tide turned on that when one of the leading proponents of such a view changed his understanding of what Jesus was referring to in Matthew 19. I would guess that Dan’s study referenced below was similar to his thought process.

I never bought into the previous view and I believe that I was part of the silent majority in that regard, but I welcomed any change of perspective. After the leading opponent changed his perspective, most of our ministers were willing to consider the licensure of the divorced and remarried.

Greg Demmitt

On Sep 10, 2014, at 4:32 PM, Dan Knight <dani...@hotmail.com> wrote:

There used to be a person on this list (who probably still is but lurking) that when a certain topic came up, he appeared with generally the same observations. I don't want to be that person, but any discussion of divorce has become a hot button for me. (I posted a paper on the subject at academia.edu and it gets "hits" almost daily.)

I remember that Steve Wolfgang did an article in the RQ about Alexander Campbell and divorce. He consolidated the few times that theMH discussed the subject.

As far as I have been able to ascertain, the first time the word "divorce" appeared in Matthew 19:3, 7, 8, and 9 (as a translation of the Greekapoluein) in an English translation in this country was in the Living Oracles (1826).  When apoluein is translated correctly (as "send away") much of the heinous interpretation attached to divorce disappears.

[Robert M Randolph]

Greg, I think you offer a model for how the topic of divorce might be talked about on list. Thanks for the insights.

Truth is that divorce is not unusual in Churches of Christ but it is seldom talked about beyond as a doctrinal topic. And then people do what they will do. 

I remember my shock when i discovered a leader in a congregation in Wichita, KS was divorced and that his former

wife and her husband were in another congregation in the region. I simply had never run into anything of the sort and then I began to ask questions and discovered it was not nearly as uncommon as I thought. That was 50 years ago. don't ask; don't tell is not a new notion.

Chaplain to the Institute
MIT    W-11 Rm. 128
40 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA. 02139
617-258-5484

[Clinton J. Holloway]

C.J., it is a very small minor point but I am not sure you are correct that Paul Conkin is atheist. I understood he attended the U U church here in Nashville. Regardless, his wife, Dorothy is not well and they have recently moved from their longtime home on Tyne Blvd. to assisted living. Blessings,

Sent from my iPhone

[C J Dull]

Clinton:
Technically, your argument is with Henry Webb, who maintained contacts with Conkin over the years.  Of course being an atheist is not incompatible with attending a Unitarian Universalist congregation.  If I recall Henry correctly, he said that Conkin, who got a degree from Milligan in science, was originally a Presbyterian (he probably came to Milligan because it was all he could afford).  Henry also said that Mrs. Conkin was more strident in these matters than her husband. 

C. J. Dull

-----Original Message-----
From: 'Clinton J. Holloway' via Stone-Campbell Group <stone-c...@acu.edu>
To: stone-campbell <stone-c...@acu.edu>