I am obviously not in a position to challenge your assessment of Dr. Sherman but perhaps you might qualify a point:
There are the sort of folks who are full on fundamentalists (or whatever term you want to use) and expect others in positions of authority to be so also;
There are folks who are liberal and thus open to liberal theology;
And there are folks in the middle who, while fundamentalists thenselves, are "tolerant" of liberalism in others (again, speaking of leadership positions)...this would be similar to the "I'd never have an abortion myself but I don't think it's my place to decide for others" line of reasoning.
Now, we can safely assume that if P&P's motives were honorable (and I understand that you don't think that they were) that they would want in positions of authority, not just folks in the third category, but only folks in the first category.
Now, finally, here's my question: Was/is Dr. Sherman a fellow best placed in the third category (the "tolerant" folks) for the first category?
Mind you, I'm not defending the idea that he should have been in the first category, that's a different discussion.
I'm just noticing that it's possible that you could be right that Sherman himself believed in the miracles in the Bible and yet his detractors could also have a point (from their point of view) if Sherman, despite his personal beliefs, could not be trusted to ENSURE that seminary leadership also held that view.
First of all, my big problem with the "fundamentalists" is that they knowingly lied about the beliefs and behavior of my former pastor, my former church, and many other people that I either knew well or knew second-hand. That's a fact. You may even recall the convention meeting where they used armed guards to exclude "moderates" from a meeting that they had every right to attend. They slandered people and ruined their careers. The fundamentalists simply wanted power for the sake of power.The real question is this: are these people, who have demonstrated that they have the ethics of rattlesnakes, the kind of leaders that you want for the denomination? I've seen their victims and I say no.
Finally, I can't speak for Dr. Sherman but I would argue that the degree to which a professor or staff member's beliefs are relevant to their employability ought to be related to their job.
Should a professor who does nothing but teach advanced Hebrew language courses be required to believe in the divinity of Christ? No -- that belief doesn't touch upon their teaching. In fact, I think that it's a great idea to have an Israeli Orthodox rabbi teaching Hebrew at a Baptist seminary.
Should a New Testament professor be required to hold traditional orthodox Baptist beliefs? The answer is yes.