The Situation at ORU Gets Worse for Richard Roberts

Posted On
11/15/2007

The Situation at ORU Gets Worse for Richard Roberts

In what must have been an incredibly humiliating experience for former ORU President Richard Roberts, his father, Oral Roberts, asked the ORU faculty in an emergency meeting to rescind their “no confidence” vote on his son Richard. I write about this because from a perception perspective – especially in the media – at the moment when Richard needs to be seen as a strong and confident leader, he’s having his dad ask the faculty to give him a second chance? According to AP reports, the faculty turned him down. The key here is that Oral is the product of an earlier generation, when he founded the institution and could easily maintain control. He could influence faculty decisions like
this very easily back in those days. But today, when any faculty member can contact the media, blog, or comment online to the public in a multitude of ways, it’s impossible to influence employees like this against their will. (Something to make note of you leaders out there.) As leaders of an organization, our job isn’t to control, it’s to inspire.

I’m surprised Richard hasn’t understood this, which is one reason I agree with the faculty. If he doesn’t see the incredible change that’s happened in the culture from the early days of ORU – back in the 70’s – then it says a lot about his ability to read “The signs of the times.”

If that wasn’t bad enough, Mark Lewandowski, Provost of the university has offered to submit his resignation if Richard Roberts is restored to the office of president – further undermining any possible support from ORU leadership.

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 15th, 2007 at 8:47 pm and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

nanny

If ORU wants to be taken seriously as a higher education university they need the Roberts family to quit running the university..the university needs to stand on it's own legs or else I think it loses a lot of credibilty if they "bully" their way into complete control of the school. Roberts needs to recognize when to cut his losses and move ahead, because right now the family is making it so much worse than it had to be.
alum 91

Actually the AP article says only 'a few professors' wouldn't stand. From that report it sounds like a majority of the tenured faculty were willing to take the challenge to try again. Also, at last reporting, Richard still holds the title of "President" of the university and is on voluntary paid-leave until 'which time the Regents' decide he can return. (Read that how you will). Technically, Richard is not the 'former President' but actually the current president. Billy Joe is titled "Executive Regent" but not 'President."
Phil

Good points, but the fact is, according to the Associated Press, Oral dropped the issue in the meeting, which means not enough faculty stood to make a change. Also, I use "former president" because he's not the active leader of the university. He may "officially" hold the title, but for practical purposes, he's not involved in day to day operations until the BOR decide whether or not to reinstate him.
anonymous

I used to work at ORU. I was there for five years, and my wife is an ORU grad. I worked in two departments, and I've had many face-to-face conversations with Richard, Lindsay, Oral, and Evelyn. GoodCommentary stated that Richard should have sat Oral down, to explain to him what the deal is, so that he could understand. The fact of the matter is that Oral DOES NOT understand much of anything other than his own way. Richard spoke to me a few times about Oral's complaints about the way he was doing something, and asked me to accommodate the request (demand). I asked "What do YOU want me to do (he was my boss, after all), and his reply, no less than twice, was "Just do what Oral wants." He also stated that he liked it the way I was doing it, but it was "just easier this way."

The other reality is that Lindsay has had free run of the place. There were lots of things she did that I could tell bothered (likely angered) Richard, but he did nothing. I often thought that he knew his ministry could not survive a second divorce, and I would have no trouble believing that she could, would, or maybe even has used that against him.

The fact that Oral met with the tenured faculty to plead Richard's case comes as no real surprise to me. In fact, it seems as if he is casting just as big a shadow that has ever been. I've often thought of Richard as the ultimate PK (preacher's kid), and John Stableman's comment about him being in the batter's box for 20 years seems pretty dead-on from my vantage point.

It's sad. I actually like Richard, and I felt like we got along great. My leaving was completely amicable (I left on my terms; I was not fired or "non-renewed"), so I have no axe to grind. I miss ORU, and pray for the whole situation daily. These are just my personal, hopefully objective, opinions.
John Stableman

Fundraising is an interesting angle, especially when you compare ORU to Falwell's school.

It became so much easier to raise megamillions in big checks for LU, that Jerry all but stopped doing any traditional fundraising to the typical $15 donor in the last two decades. The campus is lovely, tasteful and people line up to buy new buildings and facilities for the campus. Jerry was liked by the alumni, trusted and he built loyalty. That equals major donor giving.

Richard has not had the ability to attract that kind of giving. He is not popular with the alumni–sad to say –and the lack of ability to raise major capitol needs is another vote of no confidence. It's just been a silent one.

That is reason enough to replace him, for the good of the school, with someone that will attract the big bucks needed to update this campus and add new facilities.
http://www.craigforrest.com Craig Forrest

Being a classic film guy – and a PK like my brother, Paul – I am actually smiling as I write this that finding inspiration from The Godfather for the RR/OR – OREA/ORU dilemma provides an oddly apt, warm wisdom. What, you thought I'd quote scripture?

Those of us who have seen the seminal film remember a poignant scene near the end when Michael Corleone has taken over the family business, consolidating power – ruthlessly – as he goes. He sits down with his old dad, Vito, who is long past his prime. The setting is the garden area, during a warm afternoon, on the family compound. It's two alone at a simple, outdoor table. Father and son. Vito says a few words of wisdom, which Michael already knows. Better do this, you might think about that, says Dad. I know, Pop, says Michael. Who ever comes to you with a peace plan, is the traitor (turns out, we know, to be Tessio). How are the kids? Growing up, smarter than us, says Michael. It's a wonderful, generational scene. Passing from the founder to the heir. In it all, two things are evident: a) Vito is past his prime, knows it, still wants to convey some wisdom to be helpful, but knows Michael gets it. It's based on love and mutual respect. B) Michael loves his dad unconditionally and will listen to him, knowing that some of it he'll use (to even greater effect), some of it is old school. But, in the end, he loves and honors his dad – so he'll share this moment.

The moral of the story? I can see Joel Osteen as Michael Corleone and John, his late dad, as Vito. But I can never see Richard or Oral in that scene playing their respective parts. Oral, it seems, still wants to pull the strings. Rather than fading away like he should. Oral wants to go to the mattresses. Unfortunately, the time for that was half way through the movie, not near the end. Wrong idea, wrong timing. And Richard, great guy that everyone says he is, hasn't placed his feet on firm ground to establish that "I'll take it from here, Dad." Go play with the grandkids.

For all you ministry heirs out there: If you don't establish EXACTLY who you are…then there's no The Godfather II.
DocMichael

Two things. First, I've always felt deep sympathy for Oral. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think that he's a fraud or a charlatan. But I do believe that he has a deep character flaw relating to anyone challenging his authority. When such challenges arise, Oral's response seems to be to resort to naked power to destroy his perceived opponent. It is quite similar to the pattern abusers fall into. In Oral's case, I don't think he intends to be malicious or controlling. Rather, my impression is that he is acting out of fear and insecurity. Recall that Oral grew up with a least three social strikes against him. He was poor, part Native American, and a Pentecostal. In the era and region in which he was raised, these factors likely made Oral feel like a bit of a pariah in terms of the culture as a whole. The great triumph of his life was that he was over to overcome these social obstacles and rise to power, fame, and respectability. Anything or anyone that threatens this triumph or calls any aspect of his respectability/authority/legacy is felt by him to be a primal threat. To lose even a smidgen of face would be, I suspect, to tossed back into the emotional ring to face the very demons he spent his entire life trying to defeat. My sympathy arises from the thought that he may have such demons and deep-seated fears. Like so many of us broken people, I suspect that beyond the confidence and bravado, there is a frightened little boy inside of Oral.

I've never thought much about Richard, but one of the above posts has me feeling some sympathy for him as well. My suspicion is that Oral's mantle fell upon Richard more by chance than by choice. My guess is that if he had had his druthers, Richard would have done something different than succeed his father. Lacking the inner strength to resist the will of the pater familias, Richard has spent the last 20 years essentially trying to become the son his father always wanted, rather the man God created him to be. The pressure he must feel in this regard must be enormous. Coupled with the pressure applied by apparently another strong-willed, demanding person in his inner circle (Lindsey), I would imagine that Richard's inner life drips with pain and conflict. Seen from this perspective, perhaps rather than scorn, he deserves pity. In spite of all the missteps, perhaps he should even be commended for doing as well as he has done under the circumstances. Who knows? If this script plays out the way it appears that it will (with Richard being ousted from the Presidency of ORU, if not ORM), it might actually be a freeing and emotionally liberating turn of events for him. (Public humiliation and possible prison time aside, of course.)

Second, I wanted to recommend taking a gander at http://majorsmatter.net/rpitt/weber.pdf . This is simply a summary of Max Weber's analysis of organizations based upon charismatic authority. I think that it describes ORU perfectly. Pay close attention to the part about organizations transitioning to a traditional or legal-rational structure, for IMHO, this is precisely what is happening at ORU right now. Pax.

PS I loved the Godfather analogy.
Proverbs of Brian

I've been praying about the attacks at ORU and on the Roberts and how to respond to those who require me to judge one way or the other and here's what came to me today. It’s been said that there will always be critics, critics will die alone, and critics will not be remembered because they haven’t accomplished anything. However, those who write proverbs (and sayings of wisdom) are forever quoted, from Solomon to Benjamin Franklin.

So – from serving in and working for many churches and ministries, over my lifetime, here is my attempt at some proverbial constants I’ve found:

If God calls and directs you, whether for pay or as a volunteer, to serve in a church or ministry, there will always be something there to complain about or criticize.

Those who give criticism the most, have the least tolerance for taking it.

The Lord often responds like a dry river bed to your record of wrongs against a minister and their ministry but speaks in a flood stage about your job performance, your growth, your own motives and He expects you – because of His shed blood – to exchange your petty judgment with forgiveness, prayer and Agape loving support.

When you step out to start something God has called you and is directing you to do, you will always have opposition: the loudest comes from the church and the most hurtful comes from your family and friends.

When God says: “What’s in your hand” (He’s calling you to start a work) – 100% of the time He doesn’t means money. 90% of the time you don’t have any money to do what He’s asking you to do.

There are dark spiritual forces that are determined to stop your work for God by and with any means necessary… until you quit.

Those who support you today can become your enemies tomorrow.

No matter how hard you try to make everything perfect, you will always have fault-finders and complainers: the noisiest come from the church and the constant from your family and friends.

It’s not until after the dark spiritual forces seem to stop you, you’ve exhausted every resource and yet, you don’t quit pursuing the vision The Lord has put in your heart – that you will see the uncontainable, explosive power of God manifest. Few, on earth, have seen it.

Attacks on ministers and ministries come widespread and in seasons.

It’s during the heaviest part of an attack that a minister finds out who “the faithful” really are.

Ministers that rule harshly are the ones that have been betrayed by their support staff the most.

A minister or spiritual head over people are under much more physical and spiritual pressure and are held to a higher accountability by God and God alone.

“If anyone attacks you, don't for a moment suppose that I sent them, and if any should attack, nothing will come of it. I create the blacksmith who fires up his forge and makes a weapon designed to kill. I also create the destroyer – but no weapon that can hurt you has ever been forged. Any accuser who takes you to court will be dismissed as a liar. This is what God's servants can expect. I'll see to it that everything works out for the best." God's Decree (Isaiah 54:17)
Good Commentary

Well,

This is one of the better message boards that I have read, and the poster's here seem to have more positive and less judgemental posts than the other boards. This is a different class of posters.

Truly. I see compassion in almost every post that discusses these things. The ideas and stories that are presented, have lessons pointed out that WE as other readers can take with us. We can learn from each other's perspectives of what we have seen. Really, a famous ministry makes a good discussion grounds if it is done in the right attitude. Why? because there are different angles, that we can all associate with. And we are all already familiar with the complete story.

Everything in Scripture, must be read with immediate context, as well as with context to the entire Scripture. Anytime you take a passage and apply it to your life without also balancing it with the rest of Scripture, you WILL be out of balance.

So why are we being so judgemental of each other in these last few posts? Take the "bold" part of the passage above for instance. (Please don't take this as an attack Brian, it is just another person's perspective – and intended as good dialogue) When your life is lined up righteously and you HAVE followed God's precepts, and your heart IS teachable, and you ARE approachable, and you ARE accountable to people that God (and not man) has placed in those positions, then there is CERTAINLY promises in His word.

In other words, if this promise in Isaiah really does fit into this particular situation, then the accusers' will be dismissed as liars. This would imply that if you are an accuser you would be wise to ensure that you have really sought God's will before you have proceeded… To say that this hasn't happened, is also a judgement call. Which brings us to another point that is SO OFTEN taken out of context. "Judge not that ye be not judged." Is that particular sentence in the Bible more heavily weighted than other scriptures which TELL US TO JUDGE? That tell us to use discernment?

So I support the idea that if we are conscious about our own attitudes, we CAN discuss these things, we can share experiences, and we can share advice based on situations that are unfolding. God is, was, and always will be relevant. The Bible is chock full of accounts of successful and unsuccessful people. Why? Because we can learn from both.

Rock on Phil for hosting a site that attracts people with different opinions, who for the most part, are not judgemental, but willing to discuss the relevance of issues, as well as the influence of media. It is all related. In media, we have to know how to deal with these things. We are going to be asked. Media is NOT just about the medium, it is also about forming good opinions, being able to extract life lessons from current events, etc.
Brian Sinks

No attack taken. But, I didn't say the proverbs and scripture was just pertaining to RR. I do find it interesting and coincidental that the scripture mentions going to court.

To me, the scripture is saying, spiritual leaders (anyone who does a work for God), obedient to the Holy Spirit, we can have a confidence in trials – out of our control – that God is working on our behalf and for our good. In the Old and New Testament there are many examples that show when people attack us and specifically "the call" or "the annointing" God has put on our life, they are (pull open the veil) actually attacking Him! That is where we can seperate the "judge not" what God has anointed (or called) as well as forgiven from "judge them by their fruits".

For instance, everytime there was an attack, the children of Israel blamed Moses and rejected his leadership (gee, it sounds vaguely familiar). That's when they started falling dead and getting sick until Moses prayed to God on their behalf. It wasn't because they had issue with his decisions it was because they rejected what God established – God called and anointed Moses to be their leader. Moses' father-in-law, Jethro, on the other hand, saw an issue and instead of saying: "You're not fit to rule these people", he said: "What you're doing is not good. You need help. Here's a suggestion." Moses listened to him and Jethro respected the call of God on his life.

Do you know why I believe it took 40 days for Moses to receive the Ten Commandments, isolated from the people? Here's how it went down: The Lord zapped two stone tablets in a split second and said: "Don't go, Moses. You need a breather. Stay a while." Moses' retirement was isolated from the people, on a mountain. No more settling the people's problems and hearing their gripes everyday. Just chatting it up with the Lord. Now that's a retirement!

I believe God called Oral and now Richard Roberts, to be the leader of OREA and ORU. Not because they're perfect for the job but because God chose them and didn't ask my opinion. Because I "fear God", I will stand with them in their trials and offer my support, my prayers and helpful suggestions at the appropriate time.
Bart

I believe God called Oral and now Richard Roberts, to be the leader of OREA and ORU. Not because they're perfect for the job but because God chose them and didn't ask my opinion. Because I "fear God", I will stand with them in their trials and offer my support, my prayers and helpful suggestions at the appropriate time.

I respect that, as someone who has served in direct ministry as well as someone who has served on a Church Board responsible for the oversight of ministers.

I'm interested to know in this view how you are able to discern between God's call and the appearance of success on a human level. Why do you think at ORU there is such an apparent disconect between the Faculty and the Board of Regents now? The issue has expanded from a simple alleged scandal to one of non-confidence that has been voted regardless of the outcome of the current investigation. Is the entire ORU faculty or at least the majority that made this vote, not "fearing God"?
Phil

Bart – your loyalty is admirable. However, the Bible clearly gives us guidelines for leaders in ministry, and just believing they’re “called” doesn’t give them a pass. The church is perfectly in it’s right to demand explanations, see documentation, and evaluate performance when it comes to leadership. The fact that the faculty doesn’t believe Richard has the qualifications to lead the university has nothing to do with whether or not they “fear God.” In fact, it’s probably out of a deep respect and fear of God that they voted the way they did. It doesn’t help the cause of Christ when we don’t expect accountability, performance, and integrity from our leaders.
Good Commentary

Brian,

If you are involved at some level with ORU then my prayers are with you. I am one that recognizes the importance of the school. I appreciate the school for what it is and does.

I am going to echo the sentiments stated by Bart.

I would like to ask you, if you are there(at ORU), whether your experience has been different than what most are posting? Have you felt that your opinions have been accepted? If you are close enough to be on a first name basis with Richard for instance, have you ever questioned / challenged him in a good way? Has he ever asked your advice? This can just be theoretical, don't feel the need to answer – though for discussion sake, it may be appropriate.

I grew up a PK. If there is one thing that I have been extremely proud of my father for, and always have tried to model in my own life, it has been his transparency, and humility. It is supernatural. He is very much a strong leader, yet whenever he would stumble he was quick to apologize. When people would question his leadership decisions, he would keep an open mind. Even when he was utterly correct, if he ever chose any action or words in the wrong attitude, he would come back and apologize for the manner that he used, even if he still had to affirm the point he was trying to make. For instance, I have always had a pretty strong personality (ok – that might be obvious to everyone already). On occasion, my father would have to correct me as father's of teens often must. If a confrontation occurred in which my father would meet my resistance with good words, yet carnal tone in his voice, I knew that he would be approaching me again within minutes, to first apologize specifically for what slight error he may have made, and affirm that he should have worded it like "this" or not shown "that" sign of anger.

I guess this is partly why I was so sensitive to the opposite, when I was at ORU. It did not seem that there was any leeway afforded to other people that were capable of hearing God's voice. That valid questioning, with proper attitudes, with humility, was not admissable.

It is not about judging, it is about learning. Many of us are or will be leaders. And it is often easier to see things in other people, or other circumstances. What can we personally take from these events that can help us be better leaders in our churches, communities, and places of work? My experience at ORU only strengthened my appreciation for my upbringing. I have often wondered how this "touch not mine annointed" was interpretted by people that did not grow up in the very unusual environment that I did. I saw this philosophy (and still do actually) as a free pass that was being waved before the student body, faculty, and staff. Only I know that there is another way, there is balance to this. I can see there ARE boundaries to what the "touch not mine annointed" principal refers to.

I will also add that I have seen my share of church crisis. I have seen people rebel against authority. I have seen people pick apart slight flaws in leadership. I have seen great turmoil caused unnecessarily. I have seen people walk away from the church when the culture behind the scenes becomes judgemental. Many times, it would start with a small ripple of frustration amongst people. They would feed each other without even knowing it. In this sense, I agree fully that if you are submitted to an authority, you are not to grumble, complain, etc. behind thier back. You however, SHOULD go to the leadership, and share your heart, and even more importantly hear their heart(s). If they really will not hear your concerns, then you might need to analyze if your are in the right place. I don't think there are bonus points in heaven for following someone downhill.

When it comes to judging fruits, this implies that you not take a small sampling, but that you look at all of the fruits to determine if they are the leadership that you want to follow. We each decide for ourselves. But our decisions may affect others around us. We are responsible for ourselves, and our influence on those around us. Whether you are choosing whom your family will serve, or you are leading in ministry, home, or work, when it comes to judgement day you cannot defer responsibility to "I was led astray by xxxx teachings / beliefs – it wasn't my fault."

Sometimes even when we are right, we need to consider whether our choices might lead others to stumble. I hope that my analysis, which is intended as discussion for applying principles, avoiding other pitfalls, etc. doesn't encourage others to fall. This includes hoping that using the issues at hand at ORU doesn't inspire internal un-righteous uprising. – and I try to be sensitive to that in the words I choose.

The words we choose. Oh how important they are. In the world of media, we must keep these things in mind.
Bart

I graduated from ORU in 1985.

I had two experiences then that help me to understand some of what is going on now.

The first was when I applied to be a Resident Assistant for one of the "wings". The process was very regimented and I expected a reasonably good chance of making the cut.

I didn't and was understandibly disappointed. When I followed up to ask why, and made the rounds to those whom I interviewed with they all said they gave me the highest or very close to the highest grade possible. When I finally spoke with the Dean of Men the reason came out. A set of questions in the interview process was designed to measure loyalty. They wanted to know that the RA's would report anything and everything that went on, on the wing. My answers were that I was willing to report everything but that I believed there was room at times to work with an individual on minor infractions one to one before escalating. I quote a passage from Matt where conflict resolution is modelled in that manner. That was a make or break set of questions. In otherwise, more than anything they wanted RA's to be loyal to the university and any question of placing any element above that was grounds for dismissal.

The second experience was as a Senior writing a very long and heartfelt letter to OREA expresssing concern over the placement of Richard as president when he was named as successor. I had read his first wife's book Ashes to Gold, had observed the tenor and tone of Richards ministry and leadership and picked up on several facilty members concern and I was young enough and idealistic enough that I figured my writing would just go in and probably not be answered. That was not the case. I was called to the Dean of Men and roundly "chewed out" for my "insubordination," reminded that this was "God's University", Oral and Richard were God's Annointed and that criticism of that nature was a violation of the Student Code of Ethics. I was given the "opportunity" to recant and warned not to speak of the letter or the meeting to anyone or it would be grounds for my expulsion.

It was hardly a surprise to me that in the ensuing years shortly after I left, as Richard moved into the position and some of the concerns of the Faculty as to his lack of a PhD, the obvious nepotism and the concern over the strong move toward Word Church type leadership and teaching (the seminary was actually a feeder for the United Methodists before this) that there was a "housecleaning" that took strong leaders out, put an emphasis on loyalty and resulted in a loss of Accredidation in the Seminary and no doubt the message remained the same, loyalty over all.

As a man of 45 now and after some masters training in Leadership I can now put a word to what the issue is at ORU.

Toxic Leadership.

Richard Roberts was placed in a position before he was qualified on his own merits to qualify for it, because of whose son he was, not because of his own merits. In fact, sadly, it was in spite of those merits.

The philosophy of loyalty over all made that the determining factor over competency and resulted in the Board of Regents being packed with family members and loyal friends who would place loyalty over forthrightness.

This is the result, and the final appeal in the current midst is not Richard making an appeal on his own merits but rather a bringing forth of his father and an appeal to history and above all, loyalty.

Faculty opposition was there in the past and it was rooted out to the point where the loss of accredidation was appealed to as a virtue demostrating the conviction and willingness to follow God over men. That helped to provide cover for this form of toxic leadership to grasp power more firmly and use fear subtly and not so subtly over any who would dare to speak out, even internally. Not just destructive criticism but constructive criticism was silenced.

It's taken coming to this point where the finances and public support are threatened to emboldent the faculty to speak out. It's sad it's taken this and I hope that it is not the end of the university as it is a good school with great potential.

This is a case study in toxic leadership and it's not over yet. Unfortunately the faculties actions have no power beyond their symbolic statements and the Provosts statement which is a foregone conclusion.

The University is not designed to stand its own. It's been talked about but never implemented. The lever that put Richard in was the belief, fostered by the Roberts family that ORU could only survive is ORM brought in the money to subsidize it and only Richard could keep that happening. Once started there was never any reason to remove that reliance because with it, went the lever from which the fear was fostered. Once past that it was a small matter to fire the troublemakers and abuse the finances and make it a spiritual virtue.

Thats what toxic leadership does.
island girl

Loved the Godfather bit.
http://www.craigforrest.com Craig Forrest

Re: The Godfather. Thank you! Somebody, finally, who appreciated (got) the analogy.

Listen, all you ORU grads and former OREA employees: GET OVER IT!!! Sweet Jesus who sits at the right hand of the Father in all majesty – would you PLEASE quit waxing poetic & nostalgic paragraph after paragraph about your special moments talking to Richard and how much you liked him or hated him. How Oral, pushing 90, has come back from Newport Beach to reassert himself. How Lindsay controls everything Richard or Oral can't or won't. Talk about issues. Pleez. Phil talks about media perception, the rest of you are coughing up ministry secrets. GET OVER IT!!! This is a blog, not a counselling session. Phil, you're missing tons of money not developing this fiasco into a TV reality series: TULSA!

Thank God (really) I went to a little Bible College that nobody cares about. Great education, no back story, very few issues. At least I not carrying Oral, Richard and Linday (and Patty) around on my back years (or decades) later!
Mary Hutchinson

Godfather bit was perfect! Ditto reality series.

When a ministry leader fails, people get hurt. You and I both know folks from our PTL days that are not "over" Jim and Tammy.

I agree totally–get over it — this BLOG is not about gossip and broadcast ministry and Christian education is not about the man who started it.
Bart

Seems to me that when a university takes on the name of a living person that it's pretty tough for there not to be a tie between that person, that person's family and the events that take place in the context of the university's operations and ministry fund raising, all of which tie into themes in this blog. You may not like it. I don't see that as gossip. In any event I'll defer to the blog owner to make that determination and give your opinions the respect of any other opinion and leave it at that. Blessings to you.
Mary Hutchinson

If Phil's BLOG says anything about the church, it's that we focus more on the downfall of men than on using media to reach the world.

Look at the articles over the last year. The scandals always get the most responses, not the deep look at our culture and how we are/are not impacting it.

Yes, this type of story takes the scab of the wounds of some Christians. There is a need to share that pain with others.

But we need to stay focused, pressing toward the mark.
Bart

Yes, it is a shame that the negative garners more attention than the positive. That is true in general news as well as religious organization scandal.

That's why in part I believe God gives so much instruction about the qualifications of elders, pastors and leaders and why it behooves us when failure of this nature occurs to examine what happened and why.

I've actually never shared for 23 years what happened to me while at ORU because I saw no positive purpose to it. Now I wonder if my silence in a small way allowed this situation to fester and continue. I don't know. I sleep fine at night, but there it is.

Christ loved people but he was and is unafraid to confront sin. There's no place that is more needed than in the areas of leadership in the church. My comments were rooted not only in my experience, but also in Master's level study in the area of Organization Leadership and how toxic leadership develops and is established in an organization. Often it is the result of good people quited or unwilling to come forward and address small issues that build over time and compound.

Focusing on the negatives to glory in it is one thing and wrong. Facing the reality and learning it to avoid the repetition is another. It would be shame to see well meaning people take this situation and attempt to silence and shame the people who were there and can speak about what happened. Ironically, that's what happened a lot there.
Bart

Brian,

Thanks for the response. I honestly don't know whether God called Richard to this role or not, and neither does anyone else except God and hopefully Richard. I do know that a great deal of difficulties took place around the time Richard was declared the successor, which was in the academic year 1984 – 1985 which I can say with confidence because I was there and present at the announcement made as to Richards' being place in that role, although the implementation was later.

My own experience I recounted above, but I assure you mine was not an isolated case. Internal criticism was clamped down to an amazing degree over a period of time and a lot of, I believe, godly men and women were removed from positions if they questioned in any way the wisdom of the position being passed down like a generational call to a man who had evidence of personal unfitness and who also was not qualified academically at the time. I say that not to be unkind, but because they were real concerns and the response of the organization in large part was to quell the voices rather than address the concerns in a manner that gave leadership credibility.

I'd like to believe the faculty is selected prayerfully. When a majority of them give a vote of non-confidence, that's a huge sign that something is amiss within the organization.

When the acedemic provost makes a public announcement that he will resign if Richard Roberts is returned to office regardless of the findings currently underway, that makes a huge statement.

Richards response to this by the way was to accuse that Provost of wanting his position. That's a remarkable insight which, I believe, says more about Roberts than the Provost who simply did not respond to the statement.

It's ugly. It's sad. I wish the ministry's dirty laundry wasn't paraded like this in public. But it's not new. We have the "heritage" no pun intended, of PTL. Ironically, I recall Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, and John Wesley Fletcher speaking regularly at ORU right up until the time of their scandals becoming public.

Many of the abuses at PTL, in hindsight took place because there was not a separation between the Regents and the ministry leadership but rather a wink-wink, nudge-nudge kind of arrangement that rubberstamped things to where the check on power and oversight of the Regents were compromised.

The regents at ORU read like a who's who of the Word Church movement with people of similar philosphies and a close friendship to the Roberts family for years. The head of the Board of Regents is Kenneth Copeland's Son-in-law. 3 of the 6 ministries recently in the news for a Senatorial investigation are represented on ORU's board of regents. Despite the University being declared to be being managed to exist independently of subsidization by ORM (this was a goal in 1985, 22 years ago) it came out in the midst of this ugly affair the the school is $50 million more in debt than previously reported.

These are serious matters and ones that were within the grasp of wise and responsible leadership to address and indeed matters they were responsible to address.

I would be delighted to be able to hear that all of this was a blatant lie and that Richard Roberts and the ORU Board of Regents are completely innocent of these charges. I suspect the truth is, that enough of it is true to merit serious measures including a change in leadership and the intentional fostering of different values and a less toxic atmosphere.

That's based on more than just the media reports of the last several weeks. That's based upon observations and a burden carried for years.

I have blind faith in God only. Those who profess a call, who are accountible to proper oversite I give a double measure of respect, but I do not imagine that anyone, even myself is worthy of blind faith on the basis of call or anything else.
Bart

Phil,

Thanks for the response but I think you may be confusing me with Brian or misreading my posts.

I'm fully in favor of accountibility and I do not believe that the idea of "call" trumps it in any form. I'm actually glad that these issues are being raised at ORU. Regardless of the outcome of the investigation, and I think we need to be careful about assuming too much of the truth of those, although frankly, they don't surprise me and I believe some of it is true.

More importantly, the faculty is coming together in a manner and formally that in the past has been resisted and beaten back. I'm glad that dynamic is at work. It's past due in my opinion and observation.
Brian Sinks

Bart – I don't know the hearts of the tenured faculty about whether they fear God. I believe they do, but we all make mistakes. I'm speaking about my study and my beliefs with my relationship with God.

To answer how to know whether someone is "called": In the New Testament church, the leaders were appointed with prayer and fasting. With the direction of the Holy Spirit the person(s) was/were "called" or "set apart" to go or do the work of God (Acts 13:1-3).

Years ago, the ORU Board of Regents with at least a lot of prayer (though I'd imagine there was fasting too), felt God spoke to them that Richard was called to be ORU President. So, now, I don't believe a quick response to problems and attacks should change that – but with at least much prayer – and fasting.

This is not to say leaders, that are called, should not be accountable. They should
be. I believe God also holds them accountable as well and disciplines them in ways most are unaware of. Moses, for example, lost his chance to go into the Promised Land but he was still called to be the leader of Israel.
Brian Sinks

Good to talk to you… Good.

I would like to ask you, if you are there(at ORU), whether your experience has been different than what most are posting?

Yes.

Have you felt that your opinions have been accepted?

No. There is a fierce whirlpool that has been stirred up that wants blood and wants to hear nothing but what validates it's anger.

If you are close enough to be on a first name basis with Richard for instance, have you ever questioned / challenged him in a good way?

I am and I have.

Has he ever asked your advice?

Just a week ago. I sat down with him to watch Oral's chapel (which was before the Tenured Faculty response was "leaked" to the media). It became apparent to both of us that he needed to air it so partners could see what Oral thinks – 70 straight minutes of teaching that we showed (and will show again 11/22&23) over two nights "uncut". He then asked me about what I thought about many different things going on and I told him exactly what I thought and he discussed things with me. There was no fear.
Leslie I T Assih

Proverbs of Brian – your sayings are hot and very wise!!!! Straight to the point and off the hook. Praise God for your life. HOT!!!
Graydon

I graduated from ORU in 1977. I attended Fuller Seminary afterwards. I shared classes with Bobby Schuler. I found myself pitying him at times. No matter what creative instincts he had, he was being trained to stand like this, gesture like that, say it just so, He never had a chance,
Brian Sinks

"I suspect the truth is…"

I'm quoting you but I wouldn't be surprised if these are the exact words that started this chain of events.
http://www.saveoru.com Save ORU

Now is the time to help save ORU!
Bart

Brian,

Suspicion of the truth in this instance does not equate to rumormongering. When there is smoke you look for the fire.

My suspicion of the truth is based on more than the media. I spent 5 years of my life there and have remained in contact with those there for 20 years since then. There's experience to draw from.

Judging and investigating are not the same things.

There's enough to make a clear judgment that there are serious issues at work based on the loss of support of the Faculty, the very real debt and the responses of leadership that are seeking to cast blame rather than address the problems.
Good Commentary

Brian,

This is a great point. But the words alone do need to be taken into context. I believe that taking suspicion through the proper channels in very important. I haven't seen any ORU refute to the statements made by the plaintiff's that they first went to Richard, and then went to the board. Actually that is a major portion of their case. That after going to the board, they were terminated or forced to resign.

When it comes to the "dirty laundry" being aired by the lawsuit, the fact that the grounds for their termination was a result of whistleblowing, how could they not include the actual evidence that they had presented to the board in the lawsuit? In a sense their hands were tied. They either were finished with their careers (the situation damaged their marketability), or they had to fight back. Also, if you assume that their story of their firing is correct, and now with the tenured faculty confirming the strength of that possibility, don't you feel that a Christian person would feel that they ought to help out a school (one that they served and believed in) that was suffering from oppression? According to the Provost that admittedly was involved, and now appears to be showing repentance, this is nothing new(yes some reading between the lines – but I also saw similar things when I was there). By the way the Tulsa World does have his complete resignation letter in pdf format. It is much more revealing of his heart than what the reports have said.

Notice I used the phrase "appears to be", this suggests the same connotation as "I suspect the truth is" – basically it is a way to withhold judgement (good or bad) but still try to assess the situation when used THIS way.
Good Commentary

- I had tried to link to the pdf, but it didn't work… here is the url

http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/2007/pdfs/Letter_to_Pearsons.pdf
Brian Sinks

Sorry, Bart, didn't mean anything by it to you personally. Just found it ironic. I've decided for the rest of the storm just to "pray and faint not".
Bart

Brian,

No offense taken on my end. It's not an easy situation. I wrestles with a lot as a younger man at ORU to reconcile all that I saw and heard while I was there and while it's not the pre-eminent thing on my mind now, this stirs a lot of that up and as an alumnus, I just hope for better.

I have my opinions, but God is on the throne and He'll be the one to work things to His glory in the end regardless of what I think or do. I certainly join with you in prayer about the whole thing.

Bart
Bart

I just received an e-mail from ORU announcing Richard Roberts has resigned as President of ORU effective today.
GoodCommentary

Mark Lewandowski has really shown leadership here.

However, his statement that he will resign if Richard returns, should already be a very obvious event. If Richard is to return, he would demand Lewandowski's resignation, and likely several others that have been key faculty leaders would also be pressured to resign.

I still applaud him for stating it now, rather than letting it play out.

I feel bad for Oral. Really, I do. I have an 85 yr old grandfather that has always been a community leader. He, like Oral, has always been a very influencial person, was an entrepreneur, but started with nothing. At his current age, he does not understand the times, and a noteable amount of impatience has become evident. It is something that we humans struggle with as we age, becoming less patient, and a little more demanding. From this perspective I understand Oral doing some of the things that he has done. BUT in my opinion, Richard should not be allowing this. If Richard was a good leader, he would know when it was time to step down. He would know when it was time to move on, and he would be wise enough to analyze BOTH sides of what is happening, and realize that the risk of playing things the way they are playing them is just too high. Fighting further is not only bad for him, it is bad for the school that his father built. It will be extremely damaging to the legacy that his father has done so much to build. We all hope to leave a legacy, a moral standing, a spiritual standing, and an inspiration to the generations that follow us. If Richard had the respect for his father, and his father's legacy that he SHOULD have, and the wisdom to see where this is going, he would politely explain to his father, that he no longer wishes to pursue this, that it is time for him to move on.

Why is it, that sometimes, even when our intentions are good, we get blinded to the flip-side of an issue? It is natural, this should serve as an eye-opener to all of us, that even if we believe we are right, we need to have people that we are accountable to. Not people that will "yessir" us, but people that will sharpen us with different perspectives, and that can speak freely without having to worry about what we will do to them for it.
Good Commentary

By the way…. This is the same Lewandowski that is a defendant in the lawsuit. He is mentioned specifically for among other things, humiliating Swails with the manner in which he was fired.

Maybe he is trying to make some restitution? Maybe he hasn't slept well since that day even….
Paul Forrest

Is it not possible for a qualified university president to be installed, or a professor promoted, to run the university and provide credible leadership? And for Richard to run Oral Roberts Evangelistic Association as he raises funds to support the university? Why can't they be two separate ministries/organizations?
Good Commentary

"Why can't they be two separate ministries / organizations?"

Well they certainly could, should, etc… but they aren't. ORM owns ORU – it is spelled out quite plainly in the lawsuit.
John Stableman

What is it with these ministers who think they can gift their ministry to their kids?

It's not like a corner gas station …it's a ministry …built with tax free dollars from the good will gifts of donors.
http://www.craigforrest.com Craig Forrest

We're dealing with deep, dysfunctional issues of LEGACY here. Almost as if we're walking through the Old Testament again; The prophet wants to pass the mantle over to the son (or daughter) so their legacy will carry forward. A search of the evangelical landscape confirms this: Schuller to Schuller, Crouch to Crouch, Fallwell to Falwell, Graham to Graham, Roberts to Roberts, Robertson to Robertson, Swaggart to Swaggart, Price to Price, Palau to Palau…the list goes on. When you've held the reins so long, it's tough to see your ministry as anything BUT a family business.

So, Old School ministers DO see this as the corner gas station. Even if passing the ministry on to a relative is bad all around, and the gas station happens to bring in tens of millions in donations. The founder-president doesn't want donations to falter (there is a lifestyle to be maintained, peoples livelihoods are at stake), so it is seen as easiest to groom a son or daughter – for better or worse – to carry on the torch. Some are good at it; others are not. No judgements here on that.

Phil has written in previous blogs about the disruption that occurs when there is a tug of war between founder and heir. IBM's leadership struggles – typewriter company (dad) vs computer company (son) - was cited. Excellent example.

Might be a great time to trot out that blog item again, Phil.
John Stableman

Two exceptions here really …one is the Grahams …Franklin built something one his own that became bigger than BGEA.

Joel Osteen has built something greater than his incredible dad did.

Richard has been in the batters box for 20 years, he has not created anything on his own. The talk show has been marginally successful.

Craig, I agree with you. That is how they see it. They created something amazing out of nothing. On a local level, we have the same issue with the founding pastor of our church.

But, if they were accountable to a real board, this would not happen.
Paul Forrest

You have to give some credit to Richard as a fundraiser. The school is being funded by "baby boomers" and alumni who are well into their 50's. John hit it on the head when he brought up the word "accountability". The reason we have so many independent, non-denominational churches today is because their founders want "authority" without "accountability". As an ORU alum, my prayer is that this season of change will move ORU to a new level.
Phil

Not sure I'd agree with giving credit to Richard as a fundraiser. News reports indicate that ORU is $50+ million in debt. I don't know many boards who would keep a president with that poor a record.
Good Commentary

It has made top headlines.

As a former student / employee at ORU, I have been watching this story closely since it first started. It was a freak thing early in October that I had realized something was going on. It was a passing comment in a different story that made me google ORU to see what was going on.

At that time, a google news search revealed very few articles. This continued to be the pattern as new events unfolded. The 3 most recent stories have gained a lot of momentum and this story is now hitting a more mainstream readership. These three stories are 1) the vote of no confidence 2) the meeting called by Oral for Richard to request a "do-over", and 3) Lewandowski's letter of intent to resign should the board of regents re-instate Richard. This letter goes an extra step by requesting that a response to his letter follow the BOR's next meeting. In effect this request forces the board's hand to make a permanent decision regarding Richard staying or leaving.

Could this have been avoided?

I think it is pretty obvious that there have been some very questionable decisions in the leadership for quite some time that led to the lawsuit, that led to the entire situation. This could have been avoided.

The faculty still even through all that is going on, has felt strongly that the Board of Regents really was not in touch with how the faculty felt, and the "culture of fear" that was operating in the University. The faculty realized this was their opportunity to help the school. They cannot be faulted for thier votes.

Oral and Richard made a desperate plea. One that they obviously felt they could make successful. They are very persuasive speakers. And I would imagine that they laid it on pretty thick…. Guilt, Fresh Start, etc… while publicly claiming no wrong doing. This plea was opposed by what appears to be less than the majority, but none-the-less a strong opposition… Phrased similar to how Christ would answer a direct "trick" question…. Answer the question with a question. I am not sure what that means, are you asking us to rescind our three statements?

And now Lewandowski… Is he having a change of heart. It appears that he admits to getting caught up in the culture of fear. I a sense this builds a defense for him that he might need later in court, but with the strong stand that he is making it just might be more heart-felt than that.

Seriously… a current search of google news, comes up with hundreds of reports by different papers of each of these three stories. It has really hit the news nationally (some even internationally). And now with these latest developments, the school looks like it could be standing up and regaining a future, but it will be hard to say… With the level of debt, and the founder and founder's son losing thier footing… And with the school being owned by ORM… this could just be the beginning of the ending… That would be a shame.

Phil Cooke

NEXT SPEAKING EVENT:

The Situation at ORU Gets Worse for Richard Roberts

Production : Strategy : Digital Media : Consultation