Slings and Arrows

“CT alleges that anonymity was granted because the publication ‘found evidence’ that its ‘sources could face retaliation’ for speaking to the magazine about the issue. The magazine did not substantiate ‘evidence’ of possible retaliation, and there has not been evidence of retaliation towards those speaking against Jang and groups allegedly tied to him in cases from East Asia.” - The Christian Post

When I started investigating David Jang’s movement, and when it became clear that the larger Christian community needed to be made aware of the things former members were telling me, I knew I was going to be exposed to some slings and arrows. There’s plenty of evidence that David Jang’s community has not been subtle in its attempts to undermine the credibility of those to whom they take a dislike.

Consequently, when I became aware several weeks ago that the Christian Post, a newspaper closely connected to David Jang, was preparing an article on me, I wasn’t exactly surprised. I did raise my eyebrows a little when one of their emails to Christianity Today said that the “story is going to be about Ken's involvement with an international network of pro-North Korean ,anti-Christian and leftist groups that are attacking Christian organizations.” But I had a pretty good idea that any story would focus less on my (non-existent) ties to North Korea, and more on my (actual) connections with Zango, an adware company where I was the CTO and co-founder.

There’s no denying that Zango was a controversial company, and even I can’t defend everything about it. I had plenty of my own disagreements with the other executives about aspects of its business, and and as a tech guy, limited influence over corporate strategy. But there was also a great deal about Zango that I admired, and that’s what kept me there for the better part of a decade. It had a great culture. It treated its employees well. And we worked hard to fix problems and to create an honest business. If you want more of my perspective on what was good about Zango, what wasn’t, and some of the internal battles I fought, you can just search for “Zango” on my blog. You can decide for yourself to what extent my involvement with Zango affects my credibility – or perhaps more importantly, the credibility of Ted Olsen, Christianity Today’s managing editor of news and online journalism, the lead author and fact-checker for the story.

But even though I had been expecting an attack, and was for the most part prepared to submit to it gracefully, I was still a little surprised to read in this morning’s Christian Post that I was all but a purveyor of child pornography.

I suppose I need to say a few obvious things: that Zango never sponsored or allowed child pornography on its network, that it dealt resolutely and immediately with any violations of its terms of service, and that had this not been true, there’s no way I would have allowed myself to be associated with it. Any allegation or implication otherwise is simply and entirely false.

It’s regrettable that I have to say these things – but I guess I do, at this point. I’m basically in the no-win situation described by Proverbs 26:4-5: “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.”

Yes, on two occasions, Zango did have to deal with folks using its software in connection with child pornography. It was exactly the same problem that any large network of user-generated content faces, whether that be Google, Facebook, or Twitter. Zango’s response on both occasions was immediate, direct and resolute, and I have absolutely no reason to wish their response was anything other than what it was.

I hope it’s clear to neutral observers that this doesn’t really have much to do with whether David Jang’s community encouraged the belief that he was the Second Coming Christ. As with the accusations the Christian Post raised in their first article, even if everything they allege or imply is true (and it’s not), would it change a word of Christianity Today’s story?

My response to the Christian Post’s response to Christianity Today

I suppose most folks visiting my blog at this point are coming here because they’ve seen the article that Ted Olsen and I wrote for Christianity Today about David Jang.

It was clear to us for a while that the Christian Post was preparing a response to our article, and as expected, it came out this morning. I laughed so hard at their caricature of me that I’ve (temporarily) set it as my Facebook avatar:

It’s very easy for this sort of thing to degenerate into a he-said/she-said debate, and I very much doubt anybody else out there is interested enough in the details to put up with an extended commentary, so I won’t go through every point they make. But at a high level, Ted Olsen and I stand by the story we wrote. We were aware of nearly everything that the CP article says, and where appropriate we had already included those responses in the CT article. Where we didn’t, it was generally because we didn’t consider it relevant: even if the allegation was true, it wouldn’t have changed the story.

The one significant piece of information that we didn’t have when we published the article was the testimony from Ma Li’s ex-husband, Yang Shuang Hao, and if we had, we would certainly have included it. This is the key part, in which he asserts that Ma Li had never been a member of the Young Disciples:

I am sure that she was not a YD China member, so everything she testified was a lie.

As I said, we hadn’t seen that specific testimony, but we had, however, seen indirect references to the allegation that Ma Li (the only former member who was willing to be named in our article) wasn’t actually a member of the Young Disciples. So several weeks ago, I asked her and one of our other Chinese sources about it.

This was Ma Li’s response:

At that time, the community hadn't been divided into so many branches, all of us were in the community, and the community was called as general church(we have different works, mainly 3 divisions at that time, economy-verecome, praise-Jubilee, and preaching. It was explained as 3 level of Noah's Ark - spirit, mental, and flesh), and we even didn't know our name, some older members(attend the church earlier) mentioned that we had a name as "contract gospel" in Korea, we are all together, there was no any media at that time, but in oct.,2002, when David Jang came to Shanghai, in a meeting of key members (Sarah Zhang, Xianzhu Gao-Korean and some others) , he(Davide Jang) said that we will put emphasis on developing more young members(students) in universities, and would establish YD(Young Disciples) based on these young people, so, they lied that i was not a member of YD, but i was almost one of te founders of YD, and also at that time, i was assigned as a missionary to Vietnam to develop church per Korea mode of Jang's community. so, am i a member of YD or not?

This was what the other former member from China said:

If you remember the debate in Hong Kong, the people from YDJ said that Mary has never been a member of the YDJ.  This may consider right, because Mary belongs to Heaven Church in Shanghai. But, in fact, YDJ and Heaven Church are the same organization, similar to one organization with two different names.  They can use different names according to the needs of the outside world.

This source said that she knew Ma Li well. She also said that she had read the Chinese book from CGNER which contained Ma Li’s testimony in Chinese (available here), and gave this assessment of the book:

I admire what CGNER did, they work hardly, trying to find the truth. But I don't like them to give an conclusion as "cult" label to the community. It is very serious annoucement to say some organization is cult. But you can trust Li Ma's testimony completely in the second version of the book. I read her testimony completely and I think it is just.

Of course, it’s always possible that Ma Li and this other source were conspiring to lie to Christianity Today. That’s just one of the many reasons that, for this story, CT didn’t rely on just one or two sources. As you can tell from reading the article, in addition to interviewing multiple former members from Asia, we were also approached by multiple current and former members from the United States. Making allowances for different viewpoints, cultures and locations, these independent testimonies sufficiently aligned that we judged them credible.

The Christian Post’s article also included some references to yours truly. I’m really of two minds as to whether it’s worth responding or not. But I’ll toss these three things out, hoping that they don’t make me sound too petulant. (I have three preschool children, so I’m a little sensitive to whining.)

(1) Among other things, CP included a quote from an email I sent to one of their lawyers, after they threatened to sue me for a Facebook post I made back in April. It’s my understanding that when I sent that email, it was part of a protected, confidential conversation, so I’m not sure about the journalistic ethics of their including it in the article. Nor am I sure what it was supposed to show. They note correctly that, as a gesture of good faith, I did in fact remove the post in question. (I didn’t care about the post, and I’d just as soon stay out of court, thank you very much.) But the lawyer continued to demand that I acknowledge that the post was false, which I wasn’t able to do. Here’s the key paragraph of my second email to the same lawyer, lightly edited to avoid naming the individual in question (yes, I still want to stay out of court):

I am afraid that I cannot communicate to Christianity Today or to the ABHE that my earlier statements about Mr. X were false, as they were not. I was, in fact, told by two internal sources whom I believe credible that it was their belief and understanding that Mr. X had in fact made this confession. To say otherwise would be to lie - and I hope that Mr. X is not requesting that I lie to avoid a lawsuit. It is, of course, possible that those two sources are mistaken: but it is the simple truth they told me this, and it is the simple truth that I believe they are credible. To say otherwise would be to lie, and I will not do that, even to avoid a lawsuit.

I note wryly that they didn’t quote from this email.

(2) They also included some quotes from a sermon I preached last September, in which I used my initial interactions with Olivet, and the lessons I learned, as an illustration of “dying to self”. I’d encourage you to read the sermon for yourself. My first impression, for what it’s worth, is that if I ever took a source’s quotes that badly out of context, my journalistic integrity would indeed be very much open to question. But since I am, in fact, trying to repent of the sins I describe in that sermon, I’ll try to submit to this graciously as penance.

(3) You know, I have to admit, I wasn’t as charitable in some of my blog posts about the WEA or Olivet as I should have been. I keep imagining God reading them back to me on the day of judgment, and looking at me with a raised eyebrow as He comes upon certain phrases. It’s not a terribly comfortable feeling. I don’t want to go back and re-edit the posts – that would feel weird: not only did I say what I said, but I fully stand by the concerns they raise. But if I were to write them over again, I would use less inflammatory language. And to those concerned, I offer my apologies. I’ll try to do better.

What does it take to belong to the WEA?

The World Evangelical Alliance is one of the oldest international Evangelical organizations in the world. Its history goes back to 1846, and its leadership has, in the past, included such luminaries as Harold J. Ockenga and John R. W. Stott.

It’s possible that its standards have decreased in recent years, however. I’ve documented elsewhere the extent to which the WEA seems to have fallen under the influence of David Jang. But it wasn’t until recently that it was pointed out to me just how many of its affiliate organizations are also associated with David Jang. For instance, there are currently 12 “Global Partners” listed on the WEA website. Of those 12, four of them are associated with David Jang in some fashion:

• Christian Media Corporation International (no website)
• Olivet University
• World Evangelical Theological Institute Association
• World Olivet Assembly

In addition, the WEA lists some 102 “Associates”. Of those, 16 are affiliated with David Jang in some fashion:

• Apostolos Campus Ministry
• Barnabas Relief
• Christians in Media
• Creatio International
• Diakonos International
• Elim Center International
• Faith and Family Foundation
• Gospel & Information Technology
• Holy Bible Society
• Jubilee World
• Lexis Dei Fellowship
• Olivet Center for World Mission
• Saint Luke Society
• Veritas Legal Society
• Young Disciples of Jesus
• Youth Evangelical Fellowship

But you know what’s weird? Of those 16 affiliates, all of their websites are hosted on the exact same IP address (209.116.59.41 – check it out).

Beyond that, if I had to wager, I’d venture that most of those aren’t real organizations, i.e., what you’d call real, with an independent life of their own, an office, a budget, leadership, a mission, and above all, an ability and a history of actually doing something. Specifically, given what I’ve learned about how strongly David Jang’s people try to appear bigger and more professional than they are, I’d be willing to bet that these organizations out of those above aren’t actually “real”:

• Barnabas Relief
• Christians in Media
• Creatio International
• Diakonos International
• Elim Center International
• Faith and Family Foundation
• Gospel & Information Technology
• Holy Bible Society
• Lexis Dei Fellowship
• Veritas Legal Society

I don’t know that for sure, of course, but if you doubt me, take a look at the websites above, and ask yourself, “Does this website reflect the actual life of a small organization? Or is it a website trying to look like an organization?” For instance, compare the websites above to the website of another of WEA’s associate partners, Africa Inland Mission. Or AMG International. Or Association of Christians Ministering Among Internationals. The differences are subtle, but real: like how you can tell, almost without thinking, whether a given piece of snail-mail is a real letter or junk mail, or whether a five-second snippet on TV is a commercial or a real show.

So if this is true, I do kinda wonder what exactly is the WEA doing accepting these folks as associates? Because of course, this is how the WEA describes an associate:

Associate Members are independently incorporated organizations with their own specific ministries and accountability, an international scope of ministry, and the capacity and authority to serve in and beyond the WEA community.

The definition is obviously a little vague, but I’m still scratching my head as to how any of the 10 “organizations” above are likely to match that description. They’re hardly independent (the same server hosts all their websites). They’re hardly international in scope; apart from the website, I doubt that their scope extends to the point of having an independent office. I’m not sure in what sense they’re accountable to anyone at all. And I’d be genuinely surprised if any of them actually have the “capacity and authority” to serve anybody, let alone folks “beyond the WEA community”.

But I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised at this. It’s become all too evident that the WEA has basically become just another David Jang subsidiary. If David Jang’s folks are running the WEA website, if he’s put his guy in as chief of staff, if he’s got two of his guys leading the WEA’s IT Commission, if he’s the one who gave Dr. Geoff Tunnicliffe his doctorate, and so forth, I don’t suppose it’s at all surprising that he’s pulling strings to get his various façade organizations accepted as WEA members. Still, you have to imagine that it’s a little disturbing for groups like the Billy Graham Center, the Luis Palau Evangelistic Association, the Navigators, Sojourners, and many other respected and legitimate organizations, to be listed next to a dozen sham organizations affiliated with a man of questionable orthodoxy and ethics.

h/t to – well, you know who you guys are.

[Note 6/12/2012 – It’s good to know that the good folks in David Jang’s org are paying attention to your humble blogger. At least four of the sites I referenced above seem to have since been taken down (barnabasrelief.org, christiansinmedia.com, saintlukesociety.org, and veritaslegalsociety.org). Not sure why, but I’ve seen them do this numerous times before, where pages or sites that get mentioned publicly get quickly taken down. Odd, to say the least, even more so if they were actually real organizations when the WEA accepted them as members. I suppose that’s a kind of confirmation that those, at least, aren’t real. I wonder if the WEA will get around to removing them from their partners page.]

[Note 6/13/2012 – Well, it looks like those four sites are back up – but I’m laughing. I figured out why they took them down. They moved all of the sites I mentioned above to different IP addresses. Wow, that’s sensitive.

saintlukesociety.org – 209.116.59.147
veritaslegalsociety.org – 209.116.59.47
christiansinmedia.com – 209.116.59.75
barnabasrelief.org – 209.116.59.72

And so forth. Of course, the fact that all these sites changed their IP addresses on the same day indicates more clearly than anything else could that they’re not independent organizations, i.e., they’re all under the control of the same person or organization – not that this was in much dispute before. And of course, they’re all still in the same subnet – in a cage out in XO’s Fremont, California datacenter – that hosts all of Jang’s domains.

Another thing. It’s worth noting that on the message board for the Christians In Media site, there are precisely zero posts and zero threads, and the only member on the entire website is “admin”.

I should be clear that I’m not criticizing any of these groups, or any group, for being small. The 12 disciples changed the world, right? My point is, first, that these groups don’t seem to meet the criteria for WEA membership, but were accepted anyway; and second, that the groups the WEA treats this way are all associated with David Jang. There’s no doubt that’s odd; just how odd you find it depends on how paranoid you want to be.]

[Note 6/14/2012 – I just noticed that there’s another blog post that could very well be a mirror of this one, on a Dutch blog run by Jos Strengholt. A reasonable English translation is available through Google translate. Believe it or not, I was unaware of his (published a month ago) when I wrote this one.]

David Jang, Wycliffe and the WEA

Wycliffe, the venerable Bible translation organization, has gotten itself into hot water recently with some of its Bible translation practices. Various Evangelical groups, including Biblical Missiology, Horizons International, the Assemblies of God and the PCA, have criticized Wycliffe for its tendency to replace terms like “Son of God” with “Caliph of God”, or “Father” with simply “God”. The Assemblies of God has gone so far as to produce a position paper directly opposing these practices, and has threatened to break off relations with Wycliffe.

This would obviously be bad news for Wycliffe. As a result, they jumped at the opportunity to have the World Evangelical Alliance lead “an independent external audit” of their translation practices. Among other things, this independent review gave the Assemblies of God some aircover, and it appears they’ve decided to postpone any decision about Wycliffe until the WEA releases its report. And from my perspective, the WEA’s choice of Robert Cooley to lead the independent audit seems to be a positive first step.

Still, I find it a little troubling that Wycliffe specifically selected the World Evangelical Alliance to conduct this independent review. As I’ve mentioned previously, although the WEA has a long and distinguished history, since 2007 it seems to have come under the increasing control of David Jang and his associates. David Jang, of course, is the controversial leader of the Evangelical Assembly of Presbyterian Churches (not to be confused with the Evangelical Presbyterian  Church), Olivet University (not Olivet Nazarene University), Christian Today (not Christianity Today), Christian Post, and the International Business Times, among others. I’ve documented elsewhere the unsettling and sometimes unethical practices that his groups have been involved with. In general, David Jang seems to be very intent on making his organizations appear as large and mainstream as possible, with the oddly paradoxical result that they end up looking pretty shady.

Consequently, David Jang’s involvement with the WEA is a little worrisome. He was accepted onto the WEA’s “North American Council” in 2007, while the WEA was in some financial distress, and by all appearances has since become an integral part of its operations. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere:

• Jang paid for the WEA’s move to New York City in 2007. [Edit 7/11/2012: In 2007, the WEA opened a new office in Jang’s New York City offices. I am told that Jang’s community pays for Geoff Tunnicliffe’s NYC apartment, and that they contributed to the WEA’s formal move to their NYC offices in 2010.]
• All three of the WEA’s offices are colocated with organizations associated with David Jang.
• Jang hosts and runs the WEA website.
• One of Jang’s close associates, Chris Chou, is now the chief of staff of the WEA.
• All [Edit 7/11/2012: Apparently the vast majority of] WEA leadership courses are hosted at Olivet University, the school Jang founded.
• More recently, WEA and Olivet University joined in a bid to move onto the Green family’s campus in Northfield, Massachusetts.
• Etienne Uzac, one of the owners of IBTimes, is married to Marion Uzac, the former PR director for the WEA.
• The WEA gets a cut of every transaction handled by GivingWire.com (one of David Jang’s companies).
• David Jang’s media companies are promoting the WEA extensively.
• I was told by a source inside Olivet that David Jang has stated his intention to take over the WEA.
• Jang is closely associated enough with the WEA that ZoomInfo’s automated version of LinkedIn concluded (incorrectly) that he was actually the President of the WEA.

Maybe all this is just God’s way of providing for the WEA through some hard times. And maybe none of this has any impact on the WEA’s arbitration of the Wycliffe translation controversy. But it’s worth noting in this context that Jang’s reputation and orthodoxy is itself in dispute. He apparently taught at a Moonie seminary at least through 1992, and perhaps as late as 1998. He’s been the subject of several heresy investigations in China and Korea, at least one of which found solid evidence that his followers had acclaimed him to be the “Second Coming Christ”. I’ve also heard from two inside sources that his organizations engage in widespread unethical and perhaps illegal practices beyond what I’ve outlined previously.

In other words, there’s a certain irony here. The WEA has declared itself to be so orthodox that it may pronounce authoritatively on the orthodoxy of others; while at the same time, the man who seems to largely control it may have followers who think he’s the Second Coming Christ. If I were in Wycliffe’s shoes, and wanted a respected, neutral arbiter whose judgment and reputation were beyond question, I don’t think that I would have selected the WEA. I have no evidence that the WEA has a particular dog in this fight: but neither is it clear to me that its leadership is in a position to sit in judgment on anybody’s orthodoxy.

PostScript:

On my side, trying to weigh the limited evidence I have as best as I can, my initial take is that the instances I’ve seen of the WBT/SIL approach to translation certainly don’t rise to the level of heresy, nor are they a particular threat to Trinitarian orthodoxy, but they’re nevertheless at least a little troubling. Folks like Eugene Nida, who advocate a “dynamic equivalence” theory of translation, have a point, that all images of God are partial, and that translations which create incorrect impressions may not be helpful. That idea, of course, is not original with Nida, but goes back (at least) to the analogia entis of Thomas Aquinas. In other words, because I understand what Wycliffe is doing, even if I disagree with them and don't think it's terribly helpful, I'm having a hard time being as emotionally invested in the fight as the folks I've talked to from, say, the Biblical Missiology group.

Still, I think that the plain sense of Scripture, not to mention the history of Christian theology, makes it clear that certain images (not just certain texts) have canonical status, and that when there are translational or cultural difficulties, a good footnote or explanation is better than changing the canonical images altogether. This is especially true when engaging with Muslims who have already been told that the Bible has been subject to manipulation and corruption. I actually liked what the SIL folks did in the "Lives of the Prophets", by having the narrator engage in an explanatory dialogue with a member of the audience in the middle of the retelling of the nativity story.

Narrator (reading from Luke 1:26-27): God, the praised and exalted, sent the angel Gabriel, upon him be peace, to the village called Nazareth, in the region of Galilee in northern Palestine.   He sent him to a virgin girl who was engaged to a man named Joseph from the lineage of our master David, upon him be peace.  The girl’s name was Mary.

Audience Member (interrupting): Good leader, not to interrupt your talk, but we know that there are people who say of our master Isa [i.e. Jesus], that he is the Son of God.  I beg forgiveness from God for speaking like this!!!  I don’t understand why they say this thing! 

Narrator: It is known that this is an extremely important thing to them.  You must know that this [kind of] talk is a title for the awaited Messiah.  [His] birth doesn’t mean a [natural] birth from a woman.  The purpose [of this] is that God, the praised and exalted, chose our master Isa to be the king over the Lord’s Kingdom [lit. the Lordly kingdom] which He promised in the time of the prophets.  He [i.e. Isa] is the agent/deputy who became God’s Caliph over the people.  Because of this we can say that he is God’s Caliph in place of “Son of God” because God put him over the Lord’s Kingdom.   Good!  When they call him God’s Caliph it is certain that he is someone important [lit. big] among the people.  Yes, Oh Mutlaq [name of the man the narrator is speaking to], may the audience not take offense [that I singled you out and did not mention every one by name] while we read the Honorable Injil [i.e. the New Testament].  Surely our master Isa was originally the word of God that became a human in the virgin Mary’s womb.  This is for the purpose of expressing the glorious nature of God.

The translation's mistake was not in providing an explanation, but in immediately afterwards abandoning the rich and complex imagery implicit in υιος του θεου and switching to a different image (“Caliph of God”) that came bundled with a completely different set of translational and cultural problems. I don't think you can become truly Christian in your thinking without a great deal of pondering on all the concepts inherent in the phrase “Son of God”. Translations which try to avoid any difficulties associated with that image may make it more difficult for their readers to truly grasp and be transformed by the Gospel message.

Another way to put it is to say that a C5 missional strategy and related translation philosophies have an unhelpful understanding of culture. The SIL translations in question seem to assume that a given society's culture is all-pervasive and all-consuming, that there is virtually no common human nature underlying the various cultural norms, and that it is practically impossible to learn or understand new concepts. This certainly doesn't seem to be the Biblical view, and in an increasingly globalized world, it’s directly contradicted by the facts on the ground. It's a mistake to make such an idol of culture, for one of the purposes of the Gospel is, in fact, to change each and every culture into which it comes in contact. This is at least as true for our own culture as for Muslim cultures, and the difficulties that make it difficult for Muslims to truly hear the Gospel have painful parallels right here in the US. There are always points of contact and points of critique whenever the Gospel enters a culture: new conceptual frameworks must be learned, existing concepts must be transformed, and some old concepts must be abandoned in their entirety. If our presentation of the Gospel neglects either the points of contact or the points of critique, we’ve done a disservice not just to the Gospel but also to those who hear it.

[Edit 26 July 2012 – I initially stated that the WEA had moved their offices to NYC in 2007. In an email, Geoff Tunnicliffe pointed out that the WEA had not moved their offices to NYC until 2010, and another source confirmed that date. It turns out that I had misinterpreted a press release. The press release stated that the WEA had opened an office in NYC (co-located with the EAPC) in 2007; I incorrectly took that to mean that that is when they moved their offices down from Canada. I was wrong, and I’ve corrected the date above.]

IBTimes is planning for growth

Ann Brocklehurst has posted an interesting email from Jonathan Davis, one of the heads of IBTimes. (And IBTimes, it should be remembered, is one of the organizations closely associated with David Jang, the shadowy founder and effective head of the kinda shady Olivet University, which tried to purchase my alma mater, Bethany University.)

A sample of the email:

Over the next days and weeks we will be morphing our singular operation of the IBTimes newspaper into the IBT Group, multiplying our brand portfolio with the addition of several specialty publications. These changes will allow us to segment our diverse readers to better serve their needs with more refined, focused content, products and services.

This model opens up opportunity to reach readers across a broader spectrum of tastes and interests, and penetrate markets previously inaccessible. More importantly, it will allow the IBTimes newspaper to focus on its core readership of influencers and professionals as our group’s flagship publication.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with a media company trying to grow. But as I’ve continued to hear unsettling things about David Jang’s organization (I’ve now talked to three people involved with the group), and as the evidence has mounted that they operate with surprisingly lax ethical standards for a Christian organization, it’s worth paying attention to what they’re up to.

Self-motivated

I work from home. One side-effect of this is that my office is periodically invaded by barbarian-like hordes of rampaging preschoolers and toddlers. While repelling one such invasion today, I noticed that Calista, my one-year-old daughter, was missing her shirt. Also her shoes and pants. And her diaper. Since it's a father's job to pay attention to these things, I investigated. Turns out that Calista has decided to potty train herself today. So far she's refused all clothing and, entirely on her own initiative, has been using the toilet all day. She is very pleased with herself.

Olivet fails to close escrow on Bethany University

Well, this is big news. The Northern California-Nevada District of the Assemblies of God just sent out this press release:

Bethany University Chairman of the Board, Reverend James Braddy, has announced that the sale of the Bethany Campus in Scotts Valley to Olivet University failed to close escrow on April 17, 2012. Therefore the sales agreement is no longer in force and the campus is back on the market. Reverend Braddy stated that the original agreement called for escrow to close on November 30, 2011. Olivet University had requested three extensions. In each case, Olivet was unable to perform according to the mutually agreed upon contract. Negotiations for a fourth extension did not prove acceptable to either Olivet or Bethany. The last agreed upon extension ended at 5:00 p.m. April 17, 2012, with Olivet University unable to meet the mutually accepted terms of sale.

Bethany has offered to lease the campus to Olivet University until the close of the school year. Bethany will aggressively be marketing the campus with a hoped for sale by the end of summer. The Board of Trustees regrets the failure to successfully negotiate the sale to Olivet University as it hoped this would have kept a viable Christian College in Scotts Valley.

William Wagner made some comments to the Santa Cruz Sentinel yesterday that made it sound like the deal might still happen:

Dr. William Wagner, Olivet's president, also declined to elaborate, saying only that "the whole thing is still open because there are a lot of different things we're still negotiating," and that Olivet is "not leaving anytime soon."

But this press release makes it sound like the deal is finished, for all practical purposes. Given all the concerns that have been raised about Olivet University, I can’t say that I’m disappointed, though I know that this puts the NCN District in a pretty tough spot, and of course isn’t very good news for Bethany’s creditors either. I should be clear that I don’t care who the District sells the campus to – I’d be fine with the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh setting up a commune there if it got the District out of a tight spot. My objection was never to the purchase of the campus, but rather to a questionable organization assuming Bethany’s identity and heritage. I’m breathing somewhat easier now it appears that won’t happen.