Commentary:
In a recent social media exchange between two pastor friends and me, the issue of Russell Fuller’s departure from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was discussed. I think this is a great example of the sort of conclusion jumping and assuming that plagues social media and the interwebs. Without evidence, and furthermore, without even an accusation of sin, we are quick to insinuate malfeasance in a manner that is self-contradictory to our own actions in similar but less conspiratorial/inflammatory/sensationalized circumstances (eg: contracts, NDAs, etc…) by using words like Unseemly to imply something bad, but without the weight of evidence to support a true claim of malfeasance. This isn’t helpful.
A friend wrote a helpful article around this conspiracy that reflects many of my own comments below. I commend his article to you as a wise approach in this and similar matters: https://www.lambsreign.com/blog/is-mohler-purging-the-conservatives-from-sbts
I have included the original post and all comments in their original form. Only the names of the commenters (except Tom Ascol who is involved in the public debate of the video) have been obfuscated.
Original Post:
CV: It is sad to see Russell Fuller not getting a severance because he wouldn’t sign a non-disclosure agreement. The guy is a stellar Hebrew professor.
Comments:
TP: There is something unseemly about a Christian institution like a seminary having NDA’s. Though I would have understood if he had signed it, good on him for refusing.
CV: I don’t know how accurate the rest of the claims are that are made here by Fuller. I just think the NDA thing is wrong.
Locke: Why is an agreement not to publicize the amount of severance pay you receive, wrong?
CV: Is that all that is in the NDA? Have you seen a copy of the NDA?
Locke: CV ~ That’s all they talked about in the video… watch at the end when Tom comes on to talk about it. And, in my experience, that’s precisely what NDAs for severance packages entail. It’s a way to not disclose that some receive more money than others so that it won’t be used as a tactic to negotiate more.
TP: My knowledge of NDA’s is that they are comprehensive about revealing anything about the organization that would cast it in a negative light.
CV: Tom Ascol ~ Is that all that was in the NDA?
Locke: TP ~ they CAN be used for this. But that’s definitely not a given. And nothing in the video indicates that is what this was about.
TP: The few people I have talked to with experience with NDA’s have said that their severance is always tied to their silence about other matters with lasting legal implications if they break that silence. Admittedly, that’s anecdotal.
TP: But I cannot understand why anyone would forfeit a severance whose only condition was not revealing the amount of the severance.
Locke: Quoting Tom Ascol: “but i was even more concerned when i learned that the administration was requiring those who were dismissed to sign a non-disclosure agreement if they were going to receive severance pay. This separation agreement includes the sections in it that would prohibit anyone who signs it from discussing its contents or even acknowledging its existence to his wife to his pastor or to anyone other than his lawyer or his accountant.”
I don’t see anything wrong with that.
CV: TP ~ That’s exactly what I was thinking.
TP: Locke ~ How do you keep your severance pay a secret from your wife?
Locke: You don’t. That statement is likely hyperbolic. You simply can’t publicize the information.
This stuff really shouldn’t be inflammatory. It sounds like it is being sensationalized, but that’s just my sense of the way it’s being talked about.
Regardless, nothing said or done here is wrong on its face… If there IS something wrong… That should be made plain.
Tom Ascol: The antecedent to “its” is the NDA itself. Those who sign it can not even acknowledge the NDA’s existence.
Locke: Tom Ascol ~ Is there anything wrong with that on its face? I think it would entirely depend upon the nature of the content of the NDA. By itself, I don’t see anything wrong with such an agreement.
Tom Ascol: CV ~ I quote from the NDA here:
https://www.gofundme.com/f/sbts-profs?utm_source=customer…
CV: Well, that’s more than, “don’t disclose how much money we are giving you.”
TP: Yep. That confirms what I have known about other NDA’s.
Locke: Again, what’s wrong with this? SBTS: “We’re sorry that we have to terminate your employment. However, if you’ll agree not to speak ill of us, we are willing to give you a severance package that we aren’t contractually obligated to give you. If not, no worries.”
BTW, this is boilerplate language for NDAs.
“make any public or private statements (whether oral or in writing) that are derogatory or damaging to Southern Seminary, or any of its administration, faculty or staff, except as required in response to a subpoena, court order, or other legal compulsion…”
TP: Maybe I’ve misread you but hasn’t this been the whole point of the thread? You suggested that the NDA was simply for the signers to not disclose their severance package. Others have suggested that NDA’s tend to prohibit employees from criticizing the institution. Didn’t you agree earlier that such an agreement is problematic? Have I totally misread you?
TP: I thought the whole point was that we did agree that a Christian institution legally binding its employees to “never criticize and we’ll give you money if you don’t,” is unseemly.
Locke: No, you haven’t misread me. I did point out that the only thing in the video critiquing the NDA was that it was its connection to severance. I quoted from the video.
Then Tom linked to some elaboration concerning additional stipulations about derogatory statements.
My question remains: what exactly is wrong with this?
“Unseemly” is your accusation? What about this is “improper”?
Moreover, are you equating this unseemliness with sin? Because, if not, I this whole thing has been sensationalized.
TP: I do not like Christian institutions requiring secrecy. Confidentiality and wisdom is one thing. But “don’t criticize us or we’ll sue” is unseemly. That’s my opinion.
Locke: I think that’s a rather ungenerous interpretation.
Perhaps they would sue. Perhaps they would simply hope that the signer would keep their word. Either way… I don’t see any sin committed here.
TP: The whole point of legally binding NDA’s is the threat of legal action should the stipulations be violated.
Locke: Are you saying that’s sinful?
TP: One. More. Time – I’ve said that I don’t like it. I’ve said that, to me, it’s unseemly.
Locke: Then this is a rather large nothing burger.
TP: Because unless we can definitively identify something as sin, opinions on the propriety or wisdom of a thing are a nothing burger.
Locke: Yes. The NDA is a nothing burger.
Legal documents and contracts aren’t in anyway sensational. They are amoral and boring. There is truly “nothing to see”.
The only reason it’s coming up at all is to attach it to the insinuation that there is something to hide concerning SBTS’s (And by strong implication, Dr Mohler) GOING LIBERAL! Of all the absurd things.
Locke: Quite the conspiracy…
CV: Just FYI… TP and I never assumed the claims about this particular prof were true. Both of us loathe NDAs used by churches and seminaries. We do so because we have watched it used to buy silence about serious error / sin in these institutions.
TP: Exactly. I was entirely unaware of Fuller’s claims until yesterday. Totally separate issue from my opinion of NDA’s.
Locke: Agreed.
However, the matter of the NDA was completely attached to the claim of malfeasance by Dr. Fuller. Now it appears that on the primary charge someone is either lying, or very confused.
I’ll also restate for the record… Legal contracts such as NDAs aren’t a moral issue by themselves… The content, circumstances and actions surrounding them can make them a moral issue.
CV: Locke ~ You said, “Now it appears that on the primary charge someone is either lying, or very confused.” I am not sure that is established by those two videos. Much more research would have to be done. But, frankly, I don’t have the time to do it. So, I would rather not comment as to the veracity of the charges either way.
Locke: The two videos (The two sides of this argument) are in direct contradiction of each other… That was indeed their purpose. What other option could there be besides deception or confusion?
Don’t feel obligated to answer.
CV: Locke~ Did you read this? I did not read it. https://enemieswithinthechurch.com/…/Nov-6-2017…
Locke: Yes.
CV: Any thoughts?
Locke: Fuller’s account of various other faculty telling him that he misunderstood Hernandez seems obvious. I think Fuller took some things in Hernandez’s papers and ran with them even after receiving wise counsel to the contrary. I think his accusations of theological liberalism based upon the works of Dr. Hernandez (at least here) are grossly unfounded. He would have been wise to listen to his colleagues.