“After the original version of my Christian Week article was published, I learned other pertinent information that provides a needed corrective to what I wrote. Never did administrators deny permission for an open forum and never was permission sought from administrators. I had unintentionally misinterpreted some data on that matter. I take responsibility and apologize for erroneous impressions conveyed by my original wording and hope that this retraction sets the record straight. It is a privilege to be part of Tyndale’s commitment to dialogue in the midst of diversity.”
- Arthur Boers
Written by Dan Oudshoorn
Yesterday, Nathan Colquhoun and I met with Gary Nelson, the President of Tyndale, and with Barry Smith, the VP of Student Services. In this meeting, we were able to receive answers to questions that we have been asking from the beginning.
Here is the long and short of it:
Tyndale was aware of the event that Watsa hosted with George W. Bush on Monday the 19th and there were people associated with Tyndale present at that event. Although no money was immediately raised for Tyndale, contacts were made and relationships were developed that may result in some of those who attended that event becoming donors at a later time.
When I asked Gary why he remained silent, knowing that people were under the impression that the Bush visit had been canceled entirely he stated that he had told the very first reporter who called him that Bush was in town for three separate events. The original article (that appeared in the Toronto Star on Sept 12th) neglected to mention this fact. This response seemed to be a bit of a dodge (okay, you said that to the reporter but still permitted others to draw false conclusions…) but I didn’t press the issue.
When pressed on the ways in which it appears as though Tyndale is muzzling professors who present an opinion that is more critical of the ways in which the administration has handled this process (i.e. the puzzling redaction of the Christian Week article written by Arthur Boers, compared with the remarks made by Carter and Masson), Gary was adamant that he would never muzzle any professor and that he is a very firm believer in academic freedom. Instead, Gary presented a fairly compelling narrative as to why the article was redacted but I don’t want to get into the details of that, or the details that I have heard from another reliable source that provides a somewhat different narrative (which I mention for the record because, in this case, I don’t want to appear as though I have taken a stand one way or another).
At the end of the day, Gary did recognize that this situation was poorly handled and, as the spokesperson for the institution, he took responsibility for that. That said, he did find it odd that our website accused him and Tyndale of displaying a lack of transparency. Apparently, transparency is one of his core values and something he has been pushing for since arriving at Tyndale. Personally, I found that an interesting statement because Gary and the institution steadfastly refused to respond to any of our queries up until yesterday. Yet here is what brought about the meeting yesterday:
I called Gary on Wednesday and spoke with his secretary to ask if Gary would be calling me to arrange a meeting this week as she had promised me. She stated that she had nothing more to tell me about that at this time. I responded by saying that I would be in Toronto on Thursday (yesterday) and felt that it would be best if we tried to put things to bed by means of a conversation. If no conversation happened, I stated that I was certainly willing and able to escalate things further. Not surprisingly, a few hours later, I then received a call that stated Gary could meet with me on Thursday.
So, we see claims of transparency yet a refusal to speak with us, which was only broken down due to the threat of ongoing pressure (NB: I’m not claiming that this means that Gary does not value transparency; the conclusion I’m drawing is that he is in an institutional position that is situated amongst the elites in such a way as to have certain blind-spots about what transparency does or does not mean). I reckon there is a tactical lesson here for those who have suggested I act in a more placating or “gentle” manner – sadly, when dealing with official authorities, one sometimes must play a little hardball in order to get a response. My friends who have taken the gentler approach have yet to get any response to their queries.
Of course, the point of mentioning that is not to say that I personally needed a response (at one point Barry asked Nathan and I: “Who do you think you are?” and the answer to that question is, of course, that who we are is almost entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand). Rather, the point is that a number of people were advocating for answers to these questions and this appears to have been the only approach capable of producing those answers.
In conclusion, I should mention that one of Gary’s main objectives in the conversation seemed to be to emphasize that he is a good person. Based mostly upon my post about the town hall meeting he hosted, he seemed to have the impression that I thought otherwise. I should clear this up publicly: I don’t think Gary is a bad person. It was never my intention to question his track-record or character. From my perspective, Gary was only of tactical importance in this process as the figurehead and spokesperson of Tyndale. What he did in that role was what mattered. Who he was and is as a person is pretty irrelevant to the objectives I was trying to accomplish. I told him that I would have reacted in the same way to all of this, to what was done and not done or said and not said, even if he was Mother Teresa. We all make mistakes.
And that, I reckon, is about all I have to say about this whole ordeal. I’ll let y’all draw your own conclusions about the content and implications of the paragraph that I have written in bold at the start of this post. Grace and peace to all.
Written by Nathan Colquhoun | Link
Dr. Gary Nelson responded to our requests and decided to meet with us today. I am glad; not only did it help me better grasp the situation as a whole, but I hope it will also allow me to better explain to everyone else that is on this site what happened or is happening. Dr. Gary Nelson and Dr. Barry Smith were gracious to have met with us, and for that we are thankful. I was really hoping that a Larry would be in attendance just so it all rhymed.
My biggest disappointment through all this has been Tyndale’s lack of communication to the public. I recognize that they have spent a lot of time with their current students/faculty trying to work through these issues. However a decision like the one they made and the accusations and assumptions that were floating around on the Internet, especially international media, in my opinion made it mandatory that Tyndale have public statements to clarify, to put falsities in their place and to stand firm on the decisions they have made.
I’ll take it as my duty to post now what I was told by them, to shed some light on the conversation for everyone.
Since I’m not sure if they will ever make these statements themselves here are some definitive statements that Dr. Nelson made just to clear the air.
- Tyndale never directly made a penny from the event with Bush, in fact they probably lost some.
- It was not just wealthy people that were invited to the event.
- It was a combination of things that caused the cancellation of the event, it was not them “caving in” to a petition or protest.
- He admits they were caught off guard and didn’t know how to communicate well in a social media/viral world.
- Arthur Boers was not censored. He was not asked to remove the paragraph from his article. He was asked to clarify it or leave a disclaimer that gave more information about what actually happened but Boers decided just to remove it instead.
- Dr. Nelson did not call Boers a liar or a slanderer, in fact he was clear in his meeting that Boers was not a slanderer. He was not angry either. He did say though that because of Boers article it is causing slander to happen.
- In no way was he intentionally manipulating students. It was all very bad timing and he chose to be silent after rather than engage the criticisms or make more statements.
- In hindsight, having the event as a public forum with a controversial figure such as Bush would have been a wiser move rather than a private invite-only event that was seemingly secretive (but not intentionally).
I have no reason not to believe Dr. Nelson on any of this. I have no clue they wouldn’t make these statements publicly, but here they are for everyone to read. I think the way this unfolded is unfortunate but I think it was inevitable considering what was at stake and the poor system that was in place to deal with this kind of controversy. Though if it wasn’t for this site and being a way to discourse, there may have been bigger protests that happened.
I think what I have realized through this process is that Tyndale is on a steady path towards becoming a full fledged university. Not just a small time Bible College, but they want to grow into something a lot bigger. This means that they care an awful lot about reputation, donors, cash flow and appeasing as many people as possible. Whether we like it or not, or we think this is the Christian path or not, this is the direction that Tyndale wants to go. Unfortunately for them, they still have the Christian label attached to what they are doing and with that label comes all sorts of convictions of exactly what that means. For some, it means that there is no possible way that George W. Bush should be even remotely associated with what the school is doing. For others it means that he is the perfect candidate to speak to us about higher Christian Education. If the system is not in place to deal with that kind of controversy then my assumption is that there is no place for Tyndale in that realm of business. The fact that I can start a website while sitting in my underwear and “expose” anything at all tells me there is something wrong with the level of transparency and communication that Tyndale has with its people. Or at the very least there is no system setup to allow for opposition, or dialogue that people feel safe to express themselves.
A lot of accusations were thrown around on this site. A lot of them true and a lot of them not true. Tyndale’s inability to deal with the issue only made it worse. The commenter’s onslaught of insults and immaturity didn’t help much either. We posted everything that was said, or was sent to us and Tyndale could have set the record straight numerous times but it seemed like they were too paralyzed to say anything. In the end, besides allowing Bush to speak, I think this was the real failure. The fact that I have to write this post clearing the air on all eight of my points, proves that.
The second thing that bothers me about this still is that everything became personal very quick. Whether that was because of Dan Oudshoorn’s article about manipulation or the fact that Dr. Nelson cried at the town hall meeting when dealing with this issue along with his passed friend I don’t know where it started. All I know is that this was never personal for me and I know it wasn’t for Dan either, as his article on what love is on this site suggests. I come across as strong towards institutions and systems because I think that’s the only way to expose them. Dr. Nelson in this case was nothing more than a representation of a system that we discerned as being dishonest and possibly oppressive. In being the kind of school that Tyndale wants to be, their president has to grow thicker skin and be able to lead his institution through rough waters without taking offense when someone opposes him. This I don’t think was ever fully understood by the students defending him and he reassured us he was a good person and wanted the same things that we wanted. This was never about him as a person. The fact that we met with him and tried to meet him from the beginning should tell you that. We do want the same things. Accusations, whether true or false, bring out a lot in a person. If the accusations were false then so be it. Impressions are everything with a spokesperson and the impression that some got was negative. This is the life in the public eye and is a choice of the person there. He did take responsibility for this. I also take responsibility for running a site that hurtful things were said on, and accusations were made on both sides of the debate. We both think what we did was necessary and so we will both leave it at that.
All that said, I don’t think this “fiasco” needs to end with failure. I think there was a lot of lessons to be learned for everyone. For starters, we all know that media distorts and pulls out stories where there are none. They don’t care about context, they just care about getting people excited and then they leave. The hits that this site generated proved that. If I was to do this again, I probably wouldn’t have spoken to any media at all. They didn’t represent any of the moderation, grace or love that I had thought I expressed and only focused on the controversy. Dr. Nelson had a similar experience. There were other lessons we learned, like how quick people blame the messenger. Or that the messenger could have opinions that are just wrong and offend people by their accusations. I saw how fast people degrade to insults and refuse to engage the arguments. Or how quickly people take statements personally and internalize it. Or how little people actually want free speech if it goes against their own convictions. All of the realities from these past ten days shows us that we all have a lot to do to grow in character and as a body of believers, inside and outside of the school. I’m grateful that I had the opportunity to do my part in this and I’m even more grateful at the grace that was shown to me by Dr. Nelson and Tyndale while I moved forward in what I thought was the right thing to do.
I’m at Tyndale for a few hours today, email me if you want to chat or get together.
Nathan@theStory.CA
Nathan Colquhoun
[Update from Arthur Boers himself]
Nathan et al,
I have reason to believe that Arthur Boers is facing a great deal of pressure from the Tyndale administration for the article he wrote on ChristianWeek.
I’m asking if those of us who appreciated Arthur’s careful and beautifully written article can help to support him at this time by writing Gary Nelson personally – gnelson@tyndale.ca – stating our support for that article. Nothing more, nothing less. Just a quick, simple email stating that we appreciate what he wrote and feel it really benefited the conversation.
Thanks,
Mark Groleau
[Update from Arthur Boers himself]
Written by Nathan Colquhoun | Link
[Disclaimer: It seems as if I may have gone back on what I said. After my last post I stated that I wasn't going to post anymore on this site. Turns out that was a bad idea. That just allowed Tyndale to stay silent and there be no spot to gather or communicate any information about this whole mess to the public. My apologies if you were really hoping that I was done. My apologies for not doing what I said, but I think until Tyndale can figure out what is happening that this site plays an important role in helping Tyndale create their guidelines and policies around honesty and transparency.]
A few days ago we found an article written by Arthur Paul Boers, endowed chair of Leadership at Tyndale Seminary, on the Tyndale/Bush controversy. It was a beautifully written article about his feelings towards George W Bush, his use of faith and his upcoming event with Tyndale University. The article states that “If Bush was going to be associated with my school, conscience compelled me to speak.” We all read it and were relieved to know that it wasn’t just us leftist, marxist, socialist, non-christian, pacifist, shit disturbing types (just to name a few of the great labels that have been attributed to a few of us that post on Tyndale.co) that had similar feelings towards George W Bush.
Today that article was taken down. Why? We aren’t sure. We of course in our computer savvy ways were able to recover the original article from our browser cache. So for anyone that wants it we have now published it on this site for anyone to read. ChristianWeek.org after a few hours re-posted the article, but with a revision. Like we learned in Old Testament class at Tyndale, when you see something repeated, always look for what is missing in the repetition. More than likely the missing information reveals what is going on beneath everything else. So below is the text that was was ommitted from the revision when it was reposted.
Third, steeped in Mennonite convictions, I believe Christians can differ and disagree, even vigorously, and at the same time grow in love for one another.
The day after the faculty was informed of the impending presidential breakfast, a colleague and I proposed a forum for interested faculty and students. The event would consider Christian interpretation of the legacy of George W. Bush, inviting four diverse viewpoints that spanned the political and theological spectrum. We would structure a civil conversation and give room for other faculty and students to respond and interact.
Our proposal was in the spirit of dialogue, academic freedom, and freedom of speech. A key administrator explained that our offer was not accepted because of – quoting here – “concern that we not make too much of this.” (In spite of our administration’s caution, a maelstrom of controversy ensued once the press exposed Tyndale’s plans.)
I’ve really done my best to not judge through this whole process. This is making it almost too easy. Why was this taken down? Your guess is as good as mine. But I’ll guess anyway. My guess is that Tyndale didn’t like this whole paragraph all that much. It revealed too much. It showed that they screwed up and made bad decisions. It shows that not only did this event have absolutely nothing to do with free speech (like Dr. Craig Carter, Dr. Gary Nelson and Dr. Scott Masson publicly stated and pointed fingers at us for). But it reveals that even attempts to exercise this freedom that folks at Tyndale seem to prize so much, were shut down because a key administrator (I wonder who that would be) said that they didn’t want to “make too much of this.” So Tyndale probably strongly suggested that Arthur take down his post or change it. So he changed it. Of course, that is all speculation. It’s unfortunate that anything had to be changed, especially since he was just exercising his right in free speech. But I’d wager a bet that is pretty close to what happened. I can’t imagine Arthur re-reading his post a few days later and thinking “ah, you know what, that’s not necessary, why don’t we take that out.”
Tyndale is really trying to cover it’s tracks here. Their public statements are empty of meaning. Dr. Gary Nelson admits that they need clearer guidelines and policies so that views can be respected in a hospitable place. Let me make a suggestion Tyndale. Trying to undo something on the Internet won’t work. Trying to censor professors that are speaking respectfully and making the school a hospitable place won’t work. Silence from the very people that shouldn’t be silent from the higher ranks of Tyndale won’t work. Your options are dwindling and you seem to be making a lot of bad decisions before you land on some right ones. You need to be honest. Stop worrying about your reputation. Stop trying to cover your tracks. Make decisions and defend your decisions with grace and humility to those that disagree with you. Most importantly, please start communicating (honestly), you are leaving us all to wonder and guess and assume.
So again, like I stated before, we are still waiting for an official statement about this mess. Now I’d like to request a statement about why it seems as if you are censoring some professors from speaking and allowing others to blabber on.
(this article was extracted from ChristianWeek.org before the article was taken down and revised and put back up with an entire paragraph missing, below is the original transcript.)
[Update from Arthur Boers himself]
George W. Bush not welcome at Tyndale
By Arthur Paul Boers | Monday, September 19, 2011
George W. Bush will not be speaking at an event organized by a supporter of Tyndale University College and Seminary. PHOTO COURTESY FLICKR/U.S. NATIONAL ARCHVIES
Editor’s Note: A September 20 breakfast event with former American president George W. Bush, organized by a supporter of Tyndale University College and Seminary, was cancelled after some students and staff publicly questioned whether Bush’s values were in keeping with the college.
Arthur Paul Boers, who holds the endowed Chair of Leadership at Tyndale Seminary, explains his concerns on how the event was handled, and why he thinks Bush doesn’t represent evangelical Christian faith.
TORONTO, ON – Our family moved to the U.S. shortly after September 11 and experienced what it meant to be foreigners under the George W. Bush administration. We had lived there in the 1980s. Our children were born there then. We thought that we knew what life in the U.S. was like. Yet we were unprepared for how much had changed in the intervening decades, with the ramped up rhetoric and suspicion of all things foreign. On occasion we attracted hostility for being Canadian and learned to keep our nationality quiet, even toning down accents.
Much fear and hatred was couched in Christian terms. I was galled and alarmed by American Christians who were jubilant over Bush’s Christian rhetoric. I was heartsick over how the term “evangelical” came in the U.S. to be understood as automatically implying right-wing militarism. When I left Indiana to teach at a Canadian evangelical school, some friends criticized me. I repeatedly said that Canadian evangelicalism is different.
I visited overseas during my U.S. years and had long conversations with seekers from around the world. When they asked what I believed as a Christian and I explained my commitment to reconciliation, conversation partners were startled, even shocked, often asking: “What about George Bush?” He had become the face of Christianity for many.
My chief concern about George W. Bush was his use of faith. Early on, he employed “crusade” terminology. After September 11, he deliberately echoed words of Jesus, saying, “You’re either with us or against us.” On the first anniversary of September 11, in front of the Statue of Liberty’s flame he messianically proclaimed that the “ideal of America is the hope of all mankind.” Rewriting Scripture, he added: “That hope still lights our way. And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness has not overcome it.” He conflated the light of Christ with pompous American pretensions.
His carefully crafted remarks distorted sacred texts into words of mass deception. In a State of the Union address, Bush said: “There is power – wonder-working power – in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people.” This time he rewrote a beloved hymn, substituting American qualities for “the precious blood of the Lamb.”
Such claims need to be tested for blasphemy and heresy. Yet few Christians raised questions, let alone criticisms. Instead we often complain about militant Islamic rhetoric. There is a theological term for that: hypocrisy.
All this from a country that pompously called one war campaign “Operation Infinite Justice.” Really? Let’s talk about justice. As no one has been convicted, I do not label anyone a war criminal. Yet George W. Bush ought to be investigated and held to account for: wrongful abduction and imprisonment without trial; employment of torture; tens of thousands of civilian casualties in Iraq (conservative estimates total 100,000); other civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Pakistan; invading Iraq on mistaken if not fraudulently deceptive grounds; gross human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere; and greater instability around the globe.
As an orthodox believer who honours and upholds Christian creeds, who believes that only God Almighty is infinite and that Jesus Christ is the hope of all humanity, I am heartbroken over the absence of careful deliberation, discernment or debate about the arrogant theological actions and assertions of George W. Bush.
In recent months, I helped facilitate a group of pastors, professors, business people, professionals and parachurch leaders who pondered and discussed the life and witness of German pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer. As a group with diverse theological and political beliefs, we were energized to examine how we might grow in faithfulness to following Jesus today.
Over and again, we noted Bonhoeffer’s commitment to truth-telling especially when his nation, the German church or indeed even his beloved Confessing Church, fell short of God’s Reign. He was particularly passionate whenever authorities usurped, exploited or distorted Christian faith for political purposes. Christians have an obligation to speak up and speak out in such times.
Little did I realize that I would soon be faced with a dilemma where I longed for Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s wisdom. I learned of the planned Tyndale breakfast with George W. Bush three weeks before it was scheduled to happen and I had several concerns.
First, I saw the damage that occurred when Christians were silent during the Bush years about theologically questionable claims and ethically questionable actions. I witnessed Christian faith discredited, largely through our own fault, our own commissions and omissions. If Bush was going to be associated with my school, conscience compelled me to speak.
Second, in Canada I hear evangelicals – especially leaders in major parachurch organizations – regularly worry and complain about being automatically lumped with American counterparts. As Bush was going to be honoured at a private invitation-only event, Tyndale risked contributing to popular perceptions that Canadian and American evangelicalism are equivalent.
Third, steeped in Mennonite convictions, I believe Christians can differ and disagree, even vigorously, and at the same time grow in love for one another.
The day after the faculty was informed of the impending presidential breakfast, a colleague and I proposed a forum for interested faculty and students. The event would consider Christian interpretation of the legacy of George W. Bush, inviting four diverse viewpoints that spanned the political and theological spectrum. We would structure a civil conversation and give room for other faculty and students to respond and interact.
Our proposal was in the spirit of dialogue, academic freedom, and freedom of speech. A key administrator explained that our offer was not accepted because of – quoting here – “concern that we not make too much of this.” (In spite of our administration’s caution, a maelstrom of controversy ensued once the press exposed Tyndale’s plans.)
Moving back home to Canada, I did not want to think anymore about George W. Bush, the world’s most controversial Christian. I naively heaved a huge sigh of relief and crossed the border. I never dreamed that Mr. Bush would so directly impact my life even at Tyndale. Still a stranger in a strange land, I’m struggling to figure out how to speak up and to sing the songs of Zion.
Do you agree with Tyndale’s decision to invite George W. Bush to speak at a fundraising breakfast? Has he cast a negative light on evangelical Christians? Click below to send us your comments.
Arthur Boers holds the endowed chair of Leadership at Tyndale Seminary in Toronto and is the author of The Way is Made by Walking: A Pilgrimage Along the Camino de Santiago.
Written by Dan Oudshoorn
On September 14th, after a relatively small amount of outrage had been generated and expressed in relation to Tyndale’s choice to align itself with George W. Bush in order to generate some profit for the school and in order to build relationships with some powerful CEOs from across Canada, the following statement appeared on Tyndale’s official website:
“Unfortunately, due to scheduling change, the breakfast on September 20th 2011 has been canceled.”
At that time, and in all my subsequent posts and several conversations, I questioned what exactly this statement meant. Did it mean that the event had been moved sooner? Did it mean that it had been moved later? Did it mean that it had been renamed, removed from official Tyndale involvement and was still occurring as a different event? Did it mean that Tyndale was still going to gain money from an event related to Bush?
Seriously, if more than one hundred and fifty of the top CEOs across Canada are scheduled to meet with the former President of the United States are all of them – including that former President, who would be making six figures from the event – going to change their plans a week away from the event simply because a few dozen students started an online petition? Really?
None of these questions were answered. Tyndale never made any other official statements about the event itself or any of the issues related to money. Any queries and requests for more information (and there were many of them) were not answered. Prem Watsa, the CEO of Fairfax who was paying to host the event, also maintained a total silence and did not respond to any media queries addressed to him or his office.
Yet the more vigorously I pursued these questions, the more I was accused of being uncharitable and demonstrating a lack of trust in “good Christian leaders” (like Gary Nelson and his peers) who had been “appointed by God” in order to do their jobs.
Instead, we were simply to assume that the statement made on the website, coupled with Gary’s tearful presentation at the “town hall” meeting held at Tyndale on the same day, meant that everything had been peacefully resolved. Bush was not coming. Tyndale was not profiting from Bush. That was supposed to be the end of the story and pursuing things any further was said to be acting in a way that contradicted the Way of Jesus Christ.
Even some of those who struggled closely with me on this matter essentially bought into this narrative. Some decided to use our website in order to publicly declare that they were withdrawing from the petition. Others decided to freeze the website and accept no new posts. Besides, Gary had said that he would meet with us on September 20th and so the whole thing was supposed to be close to a happy resolution…
And then this appeared today: Wilf Dinnick, the CEO of OpenFile, tweeted that he was at the Toronto Hilton yesterday evening meeting with George W. Bush.
And then this just appeared: the Toronto Star confirmed that George Bush was, in fact, in town at the Hilton speaking with around two hundred CEOs at an event co-hosted by (surprise, surprise) Prem Watsa.
Therefore, despite all our efforts what is the result? Bush still came and went. Watsa still hosted his event. Did any of the money from that event go into the pockets of Tyndale? Nobody knows.
You see, this is why I felt that it was necessary to heighten the pressure after the Tyndale town hall event, instead of reducing the pressure. Reducing the pressure gave Gary Nelson and Tyndale the outs they were looking for. It’s also why Gary probably scheduled with us for a meeting today, canceled and the said he would meet with us later this week, and then canceled again and said we would meet at some undisclosed future date – with the pressure off, those who are situation in the power positions can simply play a game of endless deferral and never be accountable for their words or actions. Everything occurred just as I said it would: the administration makes an ambiguous statement, turns on the tears, redirects the conversation – and then sneaks everything in the back door, while a bunch of good hearted Christians argue over whether or not it’s okay to participate in something that hurts somebody’s feelings (regardless of all the bodies and lives that were hurt and destroyed in other parts of the world).
I understand that most Christians mean well, I understand that what I said may have been a little shocking to those who are unexposed and naive about the workings of power, but I trust that the lesson is not lost here. Alas, I have been in this situation many times before and that was why I was pushing for an unequivocal statement from Tyndale – a statement that was never made.
Therefore, short of that statement being made (and being made truthfully), I would propose the following as the reasons for Gary’s silence:
1. Gary knew that the event with Bush was still occurring at an earlier time but he chose not to share this with others in order to try and maintain a positive relationship with a major donor (Watsa) and in order to prevent any further outrage from occurring. By acting in this way, he appears to have deliberately taken advantage of the goodwill and trust of the student body at Tyndale and others in the broader community in order to permit people to draw false conclusions about whether or not the event was happening. Indeed, Gary remained silent when the news of the cancellation when viral – he basically lied to the world.
2. Gary may have also been silent about the event because Tyndale may have still been a recipient of money raised at that event.
In light of this, I would like to publicly apologize to all of those who have followed this discussion. A number of people have called for me to apologize, so here goes:
I suspect that I have failed on all counts – Bush still came, Tyndale’s administration never took responsibility or made any equivocal statement, and there is a very real possibility that Tyndale is still benefiting from money raised at the Bush event (the silence we have received in response to that question should be pretty telling to everybody at this point). I’m sorry. I tried and failed.
I’m also sorry for being a central part of a process that went viral and spread false information about the cancellation of Bush’s Toronto visit. Had that media blitz not occurred, there is a good chance that many more would have shown up to protest Bush at the Hilton yesterday. Furthermore, this event has inspired a false hope in others. I’m sorry for doing that.
It is up to those at Tyndale to choose if they want to speak up, continue to expose the oppressive and abusive form of power operating there (anybody else find it telling that those who were cheerleaders of the event can write and say whatever they want, but when one person getting paid at Tyndale speaks critically of the event that person’s writing is redacted?). It is up to the faculty and staff who know better but who have stayed silent because they are afraid of losing their jobs to speak up. It is up to the students who know better but who have stayed silent because they are afraid of being expelled or given failing grades to speak up. After all, as N. T Wright reminds us, the most repeated command in the Bible is: “Fear not!” or “Do not be afraid!”
As for me, I confess my failure and take responsibility for my own actions. I’m sorry.
Fire on Babylon. Lord, have mercy.
Amen.
What’s up with that? Anyone know what is going on? Anyone have the text from that article so we can post it fully on here?
According to the CEO of OpenFile (Wilf Dinnick) – He was at the Hilton with George Bush yesterday.
There have been reports of a motorcade being seen downtown Toronto this morning. Wondering if anyone is down there and can confirm that the event is still happening or not with George W Bush?
Written by Dr. Gary Nelson | Link
September 19, 2011 -
The controversy surrounding the cancelled breakfast with George W. Bush has demonstrated that Tyndale needs to have clearer policies and guidelines in place so that diverse views can be expressed in a respectful and hospitable space. In retrospect, I regret that we did not have such a framework in place. Consequently, we will be working with our constituents and the Board of Governors to develop appropriate procedures and practices for the future. As a university college and seminary, Tyndale will continue to host various people to speak on issues that matter.
Thank you for your engagement, your comments, and your patience.
Dr. Gary Nelson
President and Vice Chancellor
Tyndale University College & Seminary
