Visitation Committee Reports to the Board
Hewitson, Page 85
Three summary items:
1. The spiritual problems within the seminary family . . .
This section spoke of the preceding six years and the impasse that had prevailed among the faculty and the board.
It had a negative impact on students and their training for gospel ministry watching the way this controversy was handled.
The committee recommended that:
a. The board and faculty confess their failure to deal with this problem in a manner that is honoring to our Savior and Lord.
b. That we covenant together to heal the wounds that have been created by our insensitivity to our brethren.
c. That we pledge to create an environment which will be more conducive to the training of those seeking to develop their pastoral gifts.
2. The problems arising from the teaching of Norman Shepherd . . .
Report spoke of confusion among students, division in the board and faculty, negative assessment by outside theologians, damage to recruitment efforts and financial support, the overall reputation of the seminary, and the probable cause for the failure of the joining and receiving of the PCA and the OPC.
The Visitation Committee recommending that:
A. That the board act pursuant to Article III, Section 15 of the Constitution of the seminary to remove Professor Shepherd as Associate Professor of Systematic Theology on the ground that the board in its mature judgment has become convinced that such a removal is necessary for the best interests of the seminary.
(13 in favor, 8 against)
B. That the board appoint a committee of three board members and two faculty members to conduct a full investigation of these findings, giving Professor Shepherd abundant opportunity to defend his conduct of his office.
(adopted)
C. That Professor Shepherd be suspended with pay pending such investigation.
(adopted)
D. That the committee appointed by the board report back to the board at the May 1982 meeting.
(amended to next February Meeting, and adopted)
3. The May 4, 1981 Letter
Report noted the serious damage that had been done by the senders.
A. The faculty and board members who signed the May 4, 1981 letter should apologize to the board and faculty for the damage . . . done to the seminary.
They should take whatever steps are necessary to reconcile themselves to their offended [brethren]. They should exert their influence to halt further distribution of the letter and have their names removed from the letter.
B. Those who . . . cannot . . . should submit their resignation[s].
The board did not adopt this recommendation.
Instead, they adopted a substitute motion: “that the Board request the signators . . . to consider wherein that letter may hae misrepresented Norman Shepherd and may have unfairly damaged the reputation of the Seminary, making all possible amends for such.”
Hewitson, Pages 85-87