[paradox]

C’mon, dude. Re-read your post below and tell me it’s not dripping in bad-faith assumptions and distortions. Obviously you’re not familiar with Dumez or her background but it’s clear you’ve already decided to dismiss anything she has to say.

Tell me where "it's dripping in bad-faith assumptions and distortions?" Go back and listen. Again, someone stated people stopped listening...so tried to listen...boring stuff...no new revelations...silly analysis... waste of time

She never once says the word “feminist” or “feminism”, yet she’s apparently coming from a “reformed-feminist position” and, also, apparently there’s a feminist Jesus that you’ve created out of thin air involved too. You’re also suggesting that a trained historian and history professor is telling you to “dismiss historical facts.” The assumption is that the historian who has spent 15 years researching this topic knows less about it than you.

If you are serious about engaging the topic, read her book. It’s well-researched, well-sourced, and is compelling in its conclusions.

Never once, huh? I can't even respond to this. I trust that people are fully capable of judging for themselves.

[stokesjokes]

Actually, you’re right. I just re-listened and she does use the word. Just not in relation to herself or Jesus in any way.

[JK37]

The finale was a bit disappointing. It was like they had this random stuff and decided to give Dumez 15 minutes to ramble about how awful Evangelicals are by misconstruing some basic facts. hatever.

The last half should have been the focus. It didn't really reveal much of anything that most of us on here didn't already know. But it certainly did a nice job summarizing the mess.

Prevo has to go. Yesterday.

The board needs to be cleaned out. Yesterday.

Tomorrow is the best place to start.

Yeah, that is the thing. I didn't agree with some of their takes politically, over generalizations of my faith and some things said about Sr. With that said, a lot of fhe episodes contained a lot of info that just helped confirm how little we should trust the current leadership.

Like you said, Prevo and the board have to go.

But it won't happen because too many people are blinded and decide to focus more on the things they disagreed with in a podcast than actually put any kind of pressure on our school.

All you have to do is venture out on other Liberty online communities to see how much they have embraced Prevo or worse, how they'd welcome Jr back.

So what is the plan of attack? What pressure and by whom? For anyone who wants wholesale change the likes of which you are describing, the prospects seem hopeless because the mechanism for initiating it doesn’t exist. The board has insulated itself just so. We’ve all talked and talked. Nothing has happened. What’s next?

[Jonathan Carone]

The mechanism exists but is led by someone who refuses to do anything to use it.

[thepostman]

They refuse to use it but there are also plenty within the LU community that believe everything is fine. They think this is the "radical left" trying to ruin the school. They would even label people like Sly as leftists. Even people who post on this message board who say they are in favor change fall into that trap.

Baptist scandal recovery 101. We have said it all along.

[Sly Fox]

racenut - I am not sure if your post was directed exclusively at me or not. But I want to be clear. It is BECAUSE of the great faculty and students and what happens on the mountain that I share what I am sharing on this board. You would hard pressed to find many folks as avid in my support of the university as I have been and continue to be. I don't say that egotistically but just as a statement of fact. My family has been connected to the Falwells since the '60s. And to be clear, I still consider many of them good friends. I went to school with Jeannie & Jonathan in the '80s and later consulted for Jr. a decade ago. I have worked alongside many of those in senior leadership. Many of whom still maintain contact with me today but cannot speak out for fear of reprisals. Theologically I am about as far right as you could possibly imagine. I also consider myself an optimist about the future of the university.

But I cannot sit idly by and watch what is happening in the wake of the JLFJR exit. Forget the warts. I am focused on the abuse of power and lack of accountability and transparency by the people who looked the other way while enriching themselves during Junior's reign. In Matthew 18, we started with verse 15 over the course of the past year. We have now reached verse 16. That is why some of us have become more vociferous in recent times. Maintaining the mission of the school to train Champions for Christ is too important to mismanaged by unqualified folks with self interests making decisions that impact the entire community.

I have made very reasonable proposals in the Board of Trustees thread that could help rectify the situation. But we need a qualified leader in the president role and that is not the case right now. Sticking our cllective heads in the sand waiting until everyone goes away is not a plan. It may be a strategy but as a crisis expert I can attest to the fact that is a terrible one.

[stokesjokes]

If y’all will indulge me for a sec, Sly your post reminded me of some passages from my favorite book, Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton. In the chapter, “The Flag of the World,” he discusses how those who truly love a thing will be the ones who will both acknowledge its faults and commit to making it better.

“ Let us suppose we are confronted with a desperate thing-- say Pimlico. If we think what is really best for Pimlico we shall find the thread of thought leads to the throne or the mystic and the arbitrary. It is not enough for a man to disapprove of Pimlico: in that case he will merely cut his throat or move to Chelsea. Nor, certainly, is it enough for a man to approve of Pimlico: for then it will remain Pimlico, which would be awful. The only way out of it seems to be for somebody to love Pimlico: to love it with a transcendental tie and without any earthly reason. If there arose a man who loved Pimlico, then Pimlico would rise into ivory towers and golden pinnacles; Pimlico would attire herself as a woman does when she is loved. For decoration is not given to hide horrible things: but to decorate things already adorable. A mother does not give her child a blue bow because he is so ugly without it. A lover does not give a girl a necklace to hide her neck. If men loved Pimlico as mothers love children, arbitrarily, because it is THEIRS, Pimlico in a year or two might be fairer than Florence. Some readers will say that this is a mere fantasy. I answer that this is the actual history of mankind. This, as a fact, is how cities did grow great. Go back to the darkest roots of civilization and you will find them knotted round some sacred stone or encircling some sacred well. People first paid honour to a spot and afterwards gained glory for it. Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her…”

“… If it be granted that this primary devotion to a place or thing is a source of creative energy, we can pass on to a very peculiar fact. Let us reiterate for an instant that the only right optimism is a sort of universal patriotism. What is the matter with the pessimist? I think it can be stated by saying that he is the cosmic anti-patriot. And what is the matter with the anti-patriot? I think it can be stated, without undue bitterness, by saying that he is the candid friend. And what is the matter with the candid friend? There we strike the rock of real life and immutable human nature.


I venture to say that what is bad in the candid friend is simply that he is not candid. He is keeping something back-- his own gloomy pleasure in saying unpleasant things. He has a secret desire to hurt, not merely to help. This is certainly, I think, what makes a certain sort of anti-patriot irritating to healthy citizens. I do not speak (of course) of the anti-patriotism which only irritates feverish stockbrokers and gushing actresses; that is only patriotism speaking plainly. A man who says that no patriot should attack the Boer War until it is over is not worth answering intelligently; he is saying that no good son should warn his mother off a cliff until she has fallen over it. But there is an anti-patriot who honestly angers honest men, and the explanation of him is, I think, what I have suggested: he is the uncandid candid friend; the man who says, "I am sorry to say we are ruined," and is not sorry at all. And he may be said, without rhetoric, to be a traitor; for he is using that ugly knowledge which was allowed him to strengthen the army, to discourage people from joining it. Because he is allowed to be pessimistic as a military adviser he is being pessimistic as a recruiting sergeant. Just in the same way the pessimist (who is the cosmic anti-patriot) uses the freedom that life allows to her counsellors to lure away the people from her flag. Granted that he states only facts, it is still essential to know what are his emotions, what is his motive. It may be that twelve hundred men in Tottenham are down with smallpox; but we want to know whether this is stated by some great philosopher who wants to curse the gods, or only by some common clergyman who wants to help the men.

The evil of the pessimist is, then, not that he chastises gods and men, but that he does not love what he chastises--he has not this primary and supernatural loyalty to things. What is the evil of the man commonly called an optimist? Obviously, it is felt that the optimist, wishing to defend the honour of this world, will defend the indefensible. He is the jingo of the universe; he will say, "My cosmos, right or wrong." He will be less inclined to the reform of things; more inclined to a sort of front-bench official answer to all attacks, soothing every one with assurances. He will not wash the world, but whitewash the world. All this (which is true of a type of optimist) leads us to the one really interesting point of psychology, which could not be explained without it.

We say there must be a primal loyalty to life: the only question is, shall it be a natural or a supernatural loyalty? If you like to put it so, shall it be a reasonable or an unreasonable loyalty? Now, the extraordinary thing is that the bad optimism (the whitewashing, the weak defence of everything) comes in with the reasonable optimism. Rational optimism leads to stagnation: it is irrational optimism that leads to reform. Let me explain by using once more the parallel of patriotism. The man who is most likely to ruin the place he loves is exactly the man who loves it with a reason. The man who will improve the place is the man who loves it without a reason. If a man loves some feature of Pimlico (which seems unlikely), he may find himself defending that feature against Pimlico itself. But if he simply loves Pimlico itself, he may lay it waste and turn it into the New Jerusalem. I do not deny that reform may be excessive; I only say that it is the mystic patriot who reforms. Mere jingo self-contentment is commonest among those who have some pedantic reason for their patriotism. The worst jingoes do not love England, but a theory of England. If we love England for being an empire, we may overrate the success with which we rule the Hindoos. But if we love it only for being a nation, we can face all events: for it would be a nation even if the Hindoos ruled us. Thus also only those will permit their patriotism to falsify history whose patriotism depends on history. A man who loves England for being English will not mind how she arose. But a man who loves England for being Anglo-Saxon may go against all facts for his fancy. He may end (like Carlyle and Freeman) by maintaining that the Norman Conquest was a Saxon Conquest. He may end in utter unreason--because he has a reason. A man who loves France for being military will palliate the army of 1870. But a man who loves France for being France will improve the army of 1870. This is exactly what the French have done, and France is a good instance of the working paradox. Nowhere else is patriotism more purely abstract and arbitrary; and nowhere else is reform more drastic and sweeping. The more transcendental is your patriotism, the more practical are your politics.

Perhaps the most everyday instance of this point is in the case of women; and their strange and strong loyalty. Some stupid people started the idea that because women obviously back up their own people through everything, therefore women are blind and do not see anything. They can hardly have known any women. The same women who are ready to defend their men through thick and thin are (in their personal intercourse with the man) almost morbidly lucid about the thinness of his excuses or the thickness of his head. A man's friend likes him but leaves him as he is: his wife loves him and is always trying to turn him into somebody else. Women who are utter mystics in their creed are utter cynics in their criticism. Thackeray expressed this well when he made Pendennis' mother, who worshipped her son as a god, yet assume that he would go wrong as a man. She underrated his virtue, though she overrated his value. The devotee is entirely free to criticise; the fanatic can safely be a sceptic. Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.”


We are here discussing these things because we love Liberty. May we not slide into the pessimism Chesterton talks about, taking glee in Liberty’s failings, but may we also not slide into the rational optimism of being content with Liberty’s failings.

[Racenut]

Clarity in Chesterton's paradoxical rants can only be found with a full understanding of the heart and motives of each of the individuals involved. That is a paradox into itself according to Jeremiah 17:9. While I may wince at some of the verbiage being used in this thread, I do believe that all here seek to strengthen Liberty for the glory of Christ. However, my experiences have shown me that each man may have a different vision of what that would look like. It seems to me that we have already reached the point of treating the board as if they were the "pagans or tax collectors" mentioned in verse 17, and I am not privy to the specifics that would make me support this theory. I could glean judgement from the expose's of disgruntled wolves who have managed to infiltrate the flock, but I would much more likely be swayed by individual, verifiable instances of wrong doing that warrant removal of a board member. Phrases like "he should have known" or "could be seen as" don't hold much weight with me. The University supporting businesses that support the University is common practice and not unethical. If an instance of wrong doing can be proven, it should be addressed, dealt with and we move on. Opinions on subjects like tenure, curriculum and funding for certain areas of study are subjective. Please don't mistake tradition for doctrine.
I am seriously not trying to be overly simplistic or insult anyone on this thread, but there has to be a point where legitimate charges are brought or we all all decide to start pulling in the same direction. The incessant cry that "The whole Board must go" will eventually tear at the fabric that many have painstakingly spent time to weave. You may win a battle only to sit in a pile of ruins.

[Purple Haize]

Except the whole Board needs to go

[thepostman]

I'd argue by not holding the board accountable that it will eventually "tear at the fabric that many have painstakingly spent time to weave".

[stokesjokes]

Racenut, I think we are asking some different questions here. Your question is “who did wrong?” And wanting to hold them accountable, which I don’t think is a bad question.

Mine and some others’ question is “how did we get
here and how do we keep it from happening again?”

I do think the 2nd question is just as important to address or we will continue to have to ask the first question. If we don’t change the enabling culture, structure, and make-up of the board and administration that led to Jr being able to do whatever he wanted both personally and professionally, the next guy is just going to fall into the same snares.

I think you’re right that a lot of solutions seem to be pulling in different directions, but I think what we’re hoping for is for something to be done, not just maintaining status quo.

For instance, tenure may not be the answer, but yearly contracts that are made available one week before the old contract expires (not exaggerating), is clearly a problem. The answer doesn’t have to be tenure, it could be multi-year contracts or making them available earlier in the year, but something needs to change.

As far as the board, why not do what other organizations do- cut the whole board, restructure to something resembling similar schools, and tell them if they want to stay they can apply for election in an open and fair process.

[Sly Fox]

The central issue at the moment is how did these men and a few select women find themselves in their positions on the board. Who was orchestrating a board of trustees to be beholden and never check the actions of the prior chancellor/president? Anyone who dare speak out either was forced to resign or was voted out. The entire board was assembled to be a rubber stamp. Then when you have family members nominating family members into board positions the vicious cycle of self interests becomes even more manifest.

Without question there are many good men serving on the board with the best intentions. Without question IMHO, the vast majority are only on the board to be patsies for the prior and now current presidents. Due to the pliable nature of the board, it was easy for Prevo to slide in and begin manipulating the others rather easily particularly in the midst of a pandemic. The move to remove his interim tag weeks after allegedly just moving into a caretaking role while a search was conducted is clear evidence of such.

This is not a sabotage objective as implied by your rogue deacon board assertions. As a PK I know what that looks and smells like. No, this is a rescue mission.

[paradox]

Guys, we continuously miss the point. All of the emotional nonsense and willingness to indisrciminatly believe all negative information is not helpful. if we really desire change, then we should be more judicious, and less hysterical. There's a real story here, but we just keep getting sucked in. Cool the engines, and focus on the factual information that's available. And build on that.

Note...this is based on a general sense and not on anyone in particular. No need to get defensive. Just consider it.

[Sly Fox]

Isn't that what we have done for nearly a year. Do we give them another? Two more? Ten more?

If I am coming across as hysterical that is not reflective of my intent. There is ample evidence that significant change is necessary. What is lacking is the ability for any of us to do anything substantial. So here we are frustrated and frankly more than a little embarassed by our predicament. It appears that apathy is the end game for the current leadership. I am resisting that for the moment.

I was just having a discussion with someone outside the LU bubble about the comparisons between the leadership issues at LU and the SBC. And he pointed out that it involves many of the same characters. Both are in danger of significant longterm decline unless issues are addressed.

[Yacht Rock]

There’s enough factual information out there to say the whole board must go. Worst case, they knew and supported a lot of the nonsense going on. Best case, they weren’t paying attention to what they were charged with stewarding.

[stokesjokes]

I’m just not sure what claims you think we shouldn’t be believing or where anyone’s building off of anything dubious.

When the most connected poster here who doesn’t usually engage in the messy conversations dives in and tells us that the board has these specific problems and needs to be re-worked, we should believe him.

[paradox]

What do you think I'm saying?

[Purple Haize]

Guys, we continuously miss the point. All of the emotional nonsense and willingness to indisrciminatly believe all negative information is not helpful. if we really desire change, then we should be more judicious, and less hysterical. There's a real story here, but we just keep getting sucked in. Cool the engines, and focus on the factual information that's available. And build on that.

Note...this is based on a general sense and not on anyone in particular. No need to get defensive. Just consider it.

Agree 100% that there is a real story here. That’s why I was disappointed that GC went off in different directions that didn’t relate to the story.
I was the first and have been the most vocal that the Board needs to go and anyone connected with JR or with the FALWELL name needs to go (Jonathon could have a role but not running the joint). That’s not emotional or hysterical. That’s a normal response to this type of cataclysmic failure. You show me the voice in the Wilderness who was standing up against this on the Board then I’d say consider keeping them. But the ones who did were axed.
Nothing wrong with retaining the core vision of Doc but starting with a clean deck of those charged with fulfilling it

[jinxy]

The last 2 posts . GC like others dont care to fix the problems. They want to destroy the university. The difficulty is to separate who really cares about fixing the problems and who wants to destroy the school because of what it stands for. Sensationalism doesnt help anything or anybody.

[stokesjokes]

What do you think I'm saying?

The implication was that people are believing negative information they shouldn’t be believing and reacting hysterically to it.

[thepostman]

I was the first and have been the most vocal that the Board needs to go and anyone connected with JR or with the FALWELL name needs to go (Jonathon could have a role but not running the joint).

you were far from the first. The loudest for sure though!

[flameshaw]

IMHO, it is easy to see how we got into this fix. The Bored, back in the 70's and 80"s was much more concerned about the future existence of the school. They were Sr's buddies and/or had money. They trusted Sr. implicitly and really had no problems or reasons to check up on him.
Enter Jr. he was 180 degrees from his father, but kept it under warps for the most part. After mom died, he felt even more empowered and began to become more emboldened with his indiscretions. As Jr. became more dictatorial, it was like trying to put toothpaste back into the tube, Things snowballed from there.
The Bored needs to be held accountable for that and be replaced, yesterday. As far as avoiding the situation in the future, hopefully we can learn from our recent history.

[paradox]

The general board is nominial at best. Their high numbers add to the confusion, but also indicate further, that they don't matter. Junior got everything done via the Executive Committee. This isn't exactly a secret. Have they lived up to their responsibility in acting in the best interests of the university? Or did they serve the interests of Junior and his immediate family?

[paradox]

What do you think I'm saying?

The implication was that people are believing negative information they shouldn’t be believing and reacting hysterically to it.

Indiscriminately absorb everything and anything negative is what was said. There is certainly enough meaningful information to focus on. Most of it quite concerning.

[LU 57]

Just finished the series. Seems pretty clear more changes than have occurred to date are necessary; that was clear before the podcast. However, I am not close enough to the situation to know what that means as to who should stay and who should go.

That said, the series was ridiculously prejudiced. I certainly sympathize with some of the former students’ stories, but many of the things GC painted as unjust are just basic tenets of Christianity. If students don’t know what the school is about (no pre-marital sex, no same-sex relationships, no drinking, etc.) prior to enrolling, it is on them.

Make no mistake, GC is not interested in reforming LU in a way that would be acceptable to any of us (at least I think). They are clearly just trying to paint the school and evangelicalism in a bad light.