Better PR or Radical Grace

     Many of you who read this blog on a regular basis (Thank you, by the way!) are familiar with a recent event that occurred in Virginia involving the dean of a seminary and his removal. I do not wish to be lumped with a certain group of bloggers, so I will leave specifics out of this post. However, for those who are not familiar with the situation, please see the link below.

Click here to see an article about the situation

     I must admit that my first reactions to the breaking news were feelings of happiness. I was pleased to see that the serious accusations were addressed and the investigative committee had arrived at some respectable conclusions. I was very skeptical of the investigative committee from the beginning and thought it may have been formed simply "to sweep things under the rug." However, it is now clear that the committee actually did something.
     Anyways...
     While I am pleased, for the most part, to see the committee take action I question whether the entire matter was handled in the best way. If you read the above posted link you will see the public statement made by the investigative committee. You may notice some logical inconsistencies. For example, the statement about multiple "factual statements" that were self-contradictory. Beyond such flaws, the statement fails to communicate anything really substantive. For example, few questioned the religious background of the individual.
     I believe the committee may have passed up an excellent opportunity to show grace in action to a watching world. While the committee admitted the individual's discrepancies and misstatements, at no point does the committee explicitly address the sin of lying. It seems as though the committee focused so much on downplaying the issue of deception that they neglected the significance of Christian grace.
     It is true that the committee showed grace to the extent of allowing the individual to continue to teach. However, such grace does not appear to many to be significant owing to the fact the committee did not come to any significant conclusions about the individual. I don't think many would say that a couple of instances of "misspeaking" warrants the entire removal of an individual from a seminary's faculty.
     I suppose I should stop rambling and get straight to the point. Evidence shows that the individual in question clearly lied. His contradicting statements were not simply examples of misspeaking, but were examples of outright lies. The committee should have published a statement that recognized the individual as a liar. Recognizing lies as simple "misstatements" is similar to recognizing an act of adultery by a minister as a simple "mis-meeting." He who lies is a liar. He who commits adultery is an adulterer. (Thank you, Way of the Master training videos.)
    
     Let's look at a (rough) hypothetical public statement from the committee:
"After a thorough and exhaustive review of the individual's public statements, a committee consisting of members of the Board of Trustees has concluded that the individual has lied. The contradicting statements made by the individual cannot be recognized as simple misstatements or discrepancies.
"The individual has cooperated with the committee and sought repentance. He will soon be issuing a public apology owing to the public nature of his sins.
"As Christians, we acknowledge the grace God has shown to each one of us. Scripture teaches that man has rejected God and sins as an act of rebellion against God. It is only through God's grace that man may approach his Creator. Scripture points to Jesus Christ as the ultimate example of God's grace.
"Owing to the grace we, as Christians, have come to know through a relationship with Jesus Christ we have decided to show grace to the individual in question.
"The individual's contract with this institution as Dean expires at the conclusion of June. However, we have decided to offer the individual a contract for a teaching position in the coming academic year. "

     I imagine that many would be surprised with such a statement. Such a statement recognizes the reality of the situation while also showing the public the grace shown towards the individual. The failure of the committee to recognize lies as lies prevents the significance of the institution's grace from being recognized. I believe some things remain swept under the rug following this investigation. It is disheartening to see that grace may have been sacrificed by the committee for the sake of better PR. I believe the committee missed an opportunity to turn a discussion about ignored sin into a public discourse on God's grace.