The dispute was over his doctrinal view on the literal interpretation of Genesis whether he could hold onto a very strict and ultra conservative views on the literal Adam and Eve. He could he says in his reply to the Board, but 'not on exegetical ground.' This also was reflected in his recent published book, The Beginning and the End: Rereading Genesis' Stories and Revelation's Visions.
This is not the first time Michael has been asked to resign. Last time he did, it was very traumatic, since Ohlhauser from PBI forced him and the entire Bible Department to do so at the end of 2008 over the disputes that he put forth a position at the direction of the bible school. It was truly a traumatic event for him and his family, evident from his blog something about 'Wanderings in the Desert.'
I think for a thinking person, Michael is in the wrong place. If you read Genesis literally, from the original Hebrew (which I do), it is an outdated cosmology that modern man can no longer affirm. Those that do, do so, on theological grounds (or virtual grounds). It cannot be affirmed by modern science in archaeology, biology, or geology. Yet it is a story closely related to ancient Babylonian myths like the Epic of Gilgamesh. Any thinking person should steer away from a closed minded fundamentalist position, and by affirming the doctrinal position, this is the very center of the violation to academic inquiry. Michael is in the wrong place, and if he does not change his cosmology, he will be fired over many times.
Literally reading of Genesis produces an ecology and ethology that is harmful for the earth. Man is not the centre piece of all gods creation. No, I do not think so. Nor do I hold on the the fairy tale that blames man for eating a piece of fruit that was placed there to caused humanity to fail. No, that is exegetically sadistic. Any deity that fails to answer that, is a moral evil. Gods that are able to sexual violate human daughters and resulted in the death of supposedly entire living creation is also a moral evil. Gods who failed to control their sexual impulses and supposedly they also have sex amongst themselves, are absurd. Why not be brave enough to admit that periodic floods could come from the end of an ice age, and that we have created these gods to explain natural phenomenon, just as much as we can assume the firing of Michael Pahl is purely political and hatred from a pea brain evangelical-fundamentalist board?
I would say to an honest Michael, "Run, Forest, run!" Abandon the ridiculous rigid theological ground. There is no inerrancy, and this position is untenable. Abandon this illogical position, it is a new invention of the modern hard core new theological atheists. These atheists do not believe in a god that could move and influence the world, so they do the job themselves, and fire the old professor, and so fulfill the love of christ. In my former Alma Mater, PBI, they actually had sex with little kids and covered it up, just like the sons of gods in the ancient Genesis. So far, there is no help from the biblical fictitious god, other than a bunch of people whose life has been onhold and a President, Mark Maxwell in the foxhole. Is that the literal reading and exegetical work of the Lord Ben Chung. I am afraid it is.