[Jonathan Carone]

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.

Here's what I'd say to that:

I'm all for having rules, especially with LGBTQ and pre-marital sex.

That said, those stories showed us how the school lacks any semblance of grace when it comes to people in those situations. It also showed the flaw in our student leadership model that needs to be fixed as well.

I can disagree with the why of what Gangster Capitalism was trying to do there, but in having different motives, they exposed something we are doing that isn't great and can be reformed.

[LU 57]

Most of that is fair, but I would disagree with “…the school lacks any semblance of grace when it comes to people in those situations.” We heard a few troublesome stories, but some of the people they are talking about like Dean Emerick, I struggle with the characterization.

Now my only run-in with him during my day was when I turned myself in for breaking a window with a water balloon launcher , but he was totally legit in his faith from what I saw. I just have a really hard time believing folks in that position are showing no grace to these students. My two cents anyway.

[stokesjokes]

I personally have close friends who went to Dane Emerick for conversion therapy. They describe him as kind and earnest, but the therapy itself is incredibly harmful. He’s not intending to harm these kids, but what he did was harmful.

As a therapist myself, my real issue with Emerick is that he continued conducting conversion therapy long after it was well known that:
A. It doesn’t work
B. Kids coming out of it kill themselves at a really high clip

[Purple Haize]

And this is why I was disappointed with the talked GC took. We are starting to go down a road that has 0 to do with the main problem and getting into areas where there will never be consensus

[paradox]

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.

Nothing was addressed toward anyone in particular, especially not you. And, yeah, most would probably agree that we need to start doing things differently. I think they already are. But it may not be enough....we'll see.

We need an actual board and not a facade. Qualified people who fulfill a fiduciary duty and have actual oversight. People of moral character who understand responsibility and accountability. Legitimate leadership. Build-up what makes us stronger and what insulates us from future indiscretion. That should be the goal.

[JK37]

Part of me still wonders if it’s right to vilify and dismiss every person on the board, when JJ was an elite con-artist and cover-up professional. We have assumed they all knew everything. That’s not true. But even if they did, their power to do anything was nonexistent. JJ proved that time and again by dismissing anyone who dared contradict him. Put yourself in their shoes and tell me what you would’ve done differently. And resist the urge to be overly pious with the benefit of hindsight.

That said, the organization was and remains seriously flawed. Therefore reorganization is necessary. But once again the ones who could make change from the inside have shown they’re not interested in reorganization. So it has to come from the outside.

How is that made to happen?

We are learning that Dr. Falwell - a great man - was seriously flawed where it came to organizational theory and succession planning. No surprise there, since it’s an epidemic failure in the church over the last generation.

We can cry aloud and agree that the whole board needs to go. Fine. The internal mechanism for removing the board would be if they stepped down. Obviously that isn’t happening.

So what other options are there to MAKE change happen?

We have a problem (the board). We have a solution (replace the board). What we don’t have is a strategy to implant the solution. Finally once we have that, we must find the capacity to participate in the strategy. But we need the strategy next. And I don’t know what that would be.

[Sly Fox]

I agree with paradox & JK37 in principle. But I believe Prevo falls into the must go category as well.

I do not believe the nuclear option is out of the question. What needs to happen is for Jonathan to step forward in leadership and do what in his heart I suspect is the right thing. He has enough influence and sway the others to move forward. I recognize that this would be a hard sell but not impossible. The challenge is that he grew up around his dad's buddies that make up the core of the board and likely has respect for them.

The other option is to publicly create a plan to restructure and change the board that would not freak out the current board members in the way where they can gracefully step aside over time. I made some proposals along those lines in the board thread.

[Purple Haize]

@JK37 you answered your own question. The people that did were let go. That means they had 0 support from those currently there. The ones currently there were at least complicit in their silence.
I’m a HUGE fan of change coming from the inside. Huge. Giant. Big fan of that. Some people tried to do just that. And they were removed. That means there are no inside agents for change The Board only stepped up after they were dragged kicking and screaming to dismiss Junior. I totally get what your saying and in the majority of cases I agree with you. But in this case, jettisoning the Board based on action or lack of action is completely justified

[JK37]

Ok. Let’s assume there’s unanimous agreement from OUTSIDE the board the removing them entirely is justified.

What’s next?

My point is, everyone pretty much knows where everyone else stands, on all sides, the board included. Any more talk is redundant.

Where is the agent for change?

Sly hit the only agent I can think of. It’s sad it’s come to this.

[thepostman]

The board didn't know what Jr was up to when many on this message board knew, what makes you think the board has any clue what anybody outside of their echo chamber thinks?

Sly came up with a pretty good plan in the board of trustees thread that slowly gets us away from the current board and realistically, that may be our only route.

[paradox]

The board under Junior's direction was slowly dwarfed into a mere pretense. Gross misconduct was the only way that he was ever getting the boot. And that's exactly what happened.

[Purple Haize]

Ok. Let’s assume there’s unanimous agreement from OUTSIDE the board the removing them entirely is justified.

What’s next?

My point is, everyone pretty much knows where everyone else stands, on all sides, the board included. Any more talk is redundant.

Where is the agent for change?

Sly hit the only agent I can think of. It’s sad it’s come to this.

I was on board (pardon the pun) with Sky’s idea from the beginning. Unfortunately I think that time may have passed. One of the other options is Father Time. As these guys (literally) start dying off maybe their replacements will have lived through this and seen the need and mechanisms for change.
It’s obvious by the complete sham of a search for a replacement for Junior that this Board is perfectly content to keep business as usual. To think of LU as Global but run it as regional at best.

[rogers3]

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.

You seem to forget that no one person made this school. The battle will hinge on what God wants rather than the machinations of the board or those of us who fell they should be purged. That being said, to sit by and accept what is going on is NOT what any of us should be doing

[Jonathan Carone]

Part of me still wonders if it’s right to vilify and dismiss every person on the board, when JJ was an elite con-artist and cover-up professional. We have assumed they all knew everything. That’s not true.

They either knew and refused to act or they were negligent and willfully ignorant.

On top of that, given that the majority of the executive committee is morally corrupt or woefully unqualified for what they’re doing, I have absolutely no faith in someone currently serving having the ability to make the right decisions on who should or should not stay.

[paradox]

Executive Committee. Yeah, that's gotta get cleaned-up. At least the legal team is on to it. No contact order.

[JK37]

I agree on the ex com.

[Just John]

https://intrust.org/Magazine/Issues/Aut ... f-a-crisis

This is a really good article on the changes on the Board of Regents at Oral Roberts University after Richard Roberts "resigned" in 2007. Many of the similarities between his time at ORU and Jerry Jr. are uncanny...allegations of using school funds to help elect the local mayor, use of school funds/airplane for personal vacations including trip for daughter to the Bahamas, and his wife having an inappropriate relationship with a male student. Years later he would be convicted on a DUI.

There are also some similarities with a crony board. ORU had the likes of Benny Hinn, Jessee Duplantis, Creflo Dollar and Kenneth Copeland. The advantage Green had was ORU was in serious financial straits and he was able to dictate necessary changes becuae he was willing to bail them out. I know Sr. did not always feel good about having Borek forced on him but it was necessary.

[Purple Haize]

https://intrust.org/Magazine/Issues/Aut ... f-a-crisis

This is a really good article on the changes on the Board of Regents at Oral Roberts University after Richard Roberts "resigned" in 2007. Many of the similarities between his time at ORU and Jerry Jr. are uncanny...allegations of using school funds to help elect the local mayor, use of school funds/airplane for personal vacations including trip for daughter to the Bahamas, and his wife having an inappropriate relationship with a male student. Years later he would be convicted on a DUI.

There are also some similarities with a crony board. ORU had the likes of Benny Hinn, Jessee Duplantis, Creflo Dollar and Kenneth Copeland. The advantage Green had was ORU was in serious financial straits and he was able to dictate necessary changes becuae he was willing to bail them out. I know Sr. did not always feel good about having Borek forced on him but it was necessary.

Borek did what he was paid to do. LU got accredited.
I’ve been waiting for someone to bring up the oru comparison because I think it’s a good one and the closest we have. I think they’ve come out much stronger maybe LU can too. I just can’t see them following the same path at this point

[Sly Fox]

I suggested the Greens be brought in as consultants to the board last summer. I stil think it is a good idea and maybe it has occurred. But I doubt it. The tight circle in the Excecutive Committee probably thinks they are the smartest ones in the room.

As for the executive Committee, I am inclined to cut Will Graham some slack. He was just pushe dinto a leadership position and was just a random board member until recently. I get they want Billy's progeny and a younger face on the board leadership. But i will leave the jury out on him for now.

[rogers3]

https://intrust.org/Magazine/Issues/Aut ... f-a-crisis

This is a really good article on the changes on the Board of Regents at Oral Roberts University after Richard Roberts "resigned" in 2007. Many of the similarities between his time at ORU and Jerry Jr. are uncanny...allegations of using school funds to help elect the local mayor, use of school funds/airplane for personal vacations including trip for daughter to the Bahamas, and his wife having an inappropriate relationship with a male student. Years later he would be convicted on a DUI.

There are also some similarities with a crony board. ORU had the likes of Benny Hinn, Jessee Duplantis, Creflo Dollar and Kenneth Copeland. The advantage Green had was ORU was in serious financial straits and he was able to dictate necessary changes becuae he was willing to bail them out. I know Sr. did not always feel good about having Borek forced on him but it was necessary.

Borek did what he was paid to do. LU got accredited.
I’ve been waiting for someone to bring up the oru comparison because I think it’s a good one and the closest we have. I think they’ve come out much stronger maybe LU can too. I just can’t see them following the same path at this point

Well, I did say that same thing back in September 2017. It has been on the mind of some for quite a while.

[wrgoodwin]

https://intrust.org/Magazine/Issues/Aut ... f-a-crisis

This is a really good article on the changes on the Board of Regents at Oral Roberts University after Richard Roberts "resigned" in 2007. Many of the similarities between his time at ORU and Jerry Jr. are uncanny...allegations of using school funds to help elect the local mayor, use of school funds/airplane for personal vacations including trip for daughter to the Bahamas, and his wife having an inappropriate relationship with a male student. Years later he would be convicted on a DUI.

There are also some similarities with a crony board. ORU had the likes of Benny Hinn, Jessee Duplantis, Creflo Dollar and Kenneth Copeland. The advantage Green had was ORU was in serious financial straits and he was able to dictate necessary changes becuae he was willing to bail them out. I know Sr. did not always feel good about having Borek forced on him but it was necessary.

This is a very good observation! My background is a bit unique in that I have two Liberty degrees (one under Sr's leadership and one in 2008 when Jr had just taken over). I also have a degree from ORU which I obtained in 2015. I was on ORU's campus for multiple week-long intensives and would often pick the brains of faculty members about the near death and rebirth of ORU post-Richard Roberts' presidency.

Here's my basic observation: While there are a lot of similarities, there are some key differences between the ORU and LU situations which make me less hopeful that LU will follow the same path as ORU:

1. ORU was in SUBSTANTIAL financial distress during the Roberts scandal. This cannot be overstated. I personally spoke to faculty members who lived through this and it was literally "day to day" as to whether the school was even going to remain open. When the Green family stepped in to donate money, they actually made a smaller first donation just to meet payroll and to keep the school's doors open through the end of the fall semester. The larger (70 million?) donation would come later after the initial bleeding stopped.

Conversely, Liberty is flush with cash and I don't think they feel the need to approach the situation with as much humility as ORU had to. ORU, and it's board, were at the mercy of the Green family. The crisis for them was existential on a level not experienced by LU.

2. The money that ORU got from the Green family came with many, many strings attached. The Green family pushed ORU to move towards a "shared governance" model where faculty have more say so in the school's direction. While they gave ORU a small(er) donation to keep the school open, the larger donation (the one that saved the school) was contingent on the resignation of all board members. The gaggle of televangelists which made up the board did the right thing and resigned their positions en masse so that the Greens could move forward in restructuring the school.

This was a minor miracle in and of itself. The board had to choose to relinquish it's power. To their credit, they got out of the way.

3. ORU was blessed to have the right person step up as president. I cannot speak too positively about Mark Rutland and his leadership of the school. He made the necessary changes while bringing ORU back to their mission. I was also impressed by his lack of ego: He stepped in to run the school for about 5 years. Once it got back on track, he handed the baton to Billy Wilson (who as turned out to be a fine leader in his own right).

A side story about Rutland: He was president at Southeastern University when was approached by the Greens to take over ORU. He actually turned it down several times because he had committed to seeing through a capital fundraising campaign at Southeastern. The Greens actually gave several million to Southeastern so that the promise could be kept and Rutland could move onto ORU without breaking his word.

4. The faculty themselves played a major role. Richard Roberts received a "no confidence" vote from the faculty of ORU. This was a huge deal and a key turning point. I know one of the faculty members involved with this. She said all who voted did so with the understanding that their careers were on the line. In the aftermath of the no confidence vote, Oral Roberts himself (retired in California and in his late 80s) came to Tulsa to try to reason with the faculty. They were unmoved and even the old evangelist himself understood that the reign of Richard was coming to an end. If the school named after him was to be saved, he would need to work with the Greens (which he did until his death a few years later).

Just my .02. I've lurked in these forums for years and finally felt the need to jump in. haha

[Just John]

Thanks for the additional insight. Yep, often we don't make the right choice until it's the only choice left. LU can financially afford to make a lot more mistakes.

There were a lot of "heroes" in the ORU turn-around. Once the Green agreed to get involved Mart went all in and and with his team and sought advice from those who knew better than he did.

[Purple Haize]

@wrgoodwin good stuff. Love you to stick around and post more

[stokesjokes]

Not gonna lie, my brain saw “wrgoodwin” and thought Ron Godwin was here to defend himself.

[thepostman]

I thought the same thing haha.