Richard Roberts Takes a "Leave of Absence" from Oral Roberts University

Posted On
10/17/2007

Richard Roberts Takes a "Leave of Absence" from Oral Roberts University

Multiple news sources are reporting that Richard Roberts is taking a “leave of absence” from his role as President of Oral Roberts University in light of the recent allegations from three fired professors. From a media perspective, it’s one of a couple of possible PR options, and we’ll never know it’s wisdom until we hear from the legal proceedings. I think the momentum has really been moving forward with the allegations. Richard and Lindsay on Larry King Live didn’t help. I think they raised more questions than they answered in the audience’s mind. Some have said that
the ministry needs to finally make a real separation from the University. They feel that if the university is ever going to get real respect in academic circles, it needs real academic leadership in the president’s office. Oral Roberts was fine because he founded the university. But for it to go to the next level, it needs strong leadership from someone respected in academic circles. The right person wouldn’t compromise any of ORU’s spiritual vision. Either way, as I’ve said before, the issue on trial here is perception, and the result will impact religious and non-profit organizations across the country.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 17th, 2007 at 3:32 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.

Alan Smithee

Let me throw a log onto the fire. Isn't INTEGRITY the greater issue on trial here more than PERCEPTION?

Sure, you can spin the weave that it's how the public and media world "perceive" your rights and wrongs. We live in a PR world. Being honest early is crucial. And that how your ministry fares impacts every Christian group. Okay. That argument is understood. But if you hold fast to integrity first, make it the bedrock of your existence and run a ministry clinging to it, then this "if it's smoke, it must be fire" routine that ORU is enduring will rarely crop up. Don't feed the machine with excessive perks, salaries, jets, assts, decorating, etc.

Decades ago the Billy Graham team created what became known as the Modesto Manifesto after a crusade in said California town. They determined that they would take reasonable salaries, would not be caught in situations with the opposite sex (alone, at lunch, in an office, etc), they wouldn't pump up their accomplishments, and they'd let professionals write the checks and bank the offerings. They also hired an independent board to oversee the ministry.

Not perfect, who is? But worked pretty good for them for almost 60 years. Very few fires to put out. Is there a lesson to be learned here?
Brian Sinks

Current ORU students are on Fall Break this week. So it looks like Richard and the board of regents are trying to bring stability to ORU before they return. Billy Joe Daugherty (pastor of Tulsa Victory Christian Center) has been named president for the interum. Richardson, the suits lawyer, was gloading (actually with a big smile on his face) all over the news tonight saying: "Billy Joe is the better man for the job" plus "We don't have to prove a single allegation." Instead of keeping his mouth shut, I'd say Richardson might have just shot himself in the foot with the public's perception.
Leslie I T Assih

We have a spiritual enemy that is a seasoned pro in the art of deception (and perception) and sometimes many of our leaders (and ourselves) forget that we are really to live for Christ Jesus and forget about the accumulation of wealth and the display of it as a sign of our faith. If we have it (and some of us will have it), it should be used to build and establish the Lord's work on earth till He returns. The goal is to do God's will and leave this world so that we can return in the full glory that is due us as saints of the Lord. Many a time, if you really check it, the intimacy with the Lord is taken over (or replaced) by our worldly possessions, ambitions and the new approval of men. Point with the media thing – if we spent more time on creatively portraying the Message than expressing the messenger (producer driven programmes centred on creative entertainment & ministry), many would not even be heard of even if they were to stumble because the centre of focus is not on them but the message displayed. Celebrity culture has hit the church and we who once lived in the light of Jesus now use the light of Jesus to show ourselves to the world (thinking that because we have some dollars or pounds the world will now like us more) and we can't tell that we are no better than anyone save that Jesus saved our lives. The Message should be exalted not us the messengers. I pray that I can learn from this and i pray that Richard Roberts will recover from this and help others in the near future – he is still my brother regardless of what has happened.
Courtney Pyles

I worked for a television ministry, as part of showing our commitment to the ministry and to help in the evangelizing work we were expected to contribute any amount per pay check. The Founders owned jets, houses, horses, their children and grandchildren cavorted around the world in the name of missions, they brought a few pictures of the poor and orphans which they showed on air to solicit for more money, while we saw the pictures of them sight seeing, drinking and having a good time living in luxury hotels.
They would come back and say those countries were ruled by the demons of poverty,
because they had not accepted Jesus. I saw the ages of some of the donors, old people in nursing homes believing that they would be cured of ailments, that they had due to aging would be cured, because some preacher like Oral showed up and said they would receive it if they sent the money.
The poor are still poor, the message is being broadcast in to the air, the poor have no TV's to watch, those that do, the message falls on rocky grounds.
Indeed charlatans fill this business, shysters and shills taking money from the poor in God's name, feeding of the fat of the hoofs of the lambs tthat hey are sheperds.
There is judgement day for this very reason, that we all may know what dark deeds were commited, and how may souls were lost, their faith was destroyed and their peace of mind robbed, by people taking money in GOD's name and not using it for the purpose they claimed they were going to use it for. The poor in INDIA,AFRICA, and other part of the worls still suffer, while these Founders misapproriate what is indeed God's.
I think they should all be prosecuted for mail fraud: They promise miracles and cures
and never deliver.
Leslie I T Assih

You're right about God's judgement on these things and it will come and it will begin in His House (talk about a high standard)! But if we are in the House of God, the judgement will come to all of us and if we are not in the House of God, the same bible says that if we the righteous are scarcely saved (from God's judgement) what will be the case for the ungodly. Sometimes we need that reverential fear of God back into our hearts to humble ourselves -starting from me.
Elizabeth Conley

Healthy ministries inundate their members with information. They don’t persecute people for accidentally stumbling on problems. Please let’s not lose track of the fact that the plaintiffs are asking for relief based on how they were treated. These aren’t people who ran to the news media with gossip and innuendo. They are well meaning Christians who got caught in an ugly situation. Furthermore, if we’re people of character and conviction, we’re likely to end up in similar situations. It can happen to anyone who stands by their convictions.

http://kotv.com/files/0710/oru.pdf
The Untold Perspective

"accidentally stumbling on problems" and "got caught in an ugly situation"

Elizabeth, say you let someone use your laptop to access the internet or take your laptop to an IT guy (at Best Buy or at work) to repair a problem and you find out they have made copies of your personal documents and printed them out for distribution – what would you call that? Stealing? How would you feel? Violated? Can they justify it to you by focusing on the information in your document?

"how they were treated"

"They" are the ones that became accessories (to the IT guy) by not stopping and destroying the stolen document(s) but instead printing and distributing copies. What would you call this? Can they justify their actions because you didn't delete the document from your laptop?

"aren’t people who ran to the news media with gossip and innuendo"

I beg to differ. These "people" (the president of a Christian university once called "trusted" faculty) made their court document into a scandle sheet to turn a local case into a smear campaign tried in the national media. Your link was to the original court document which has been revised several times, each modifying their "story" and putting in all of the (stolen) document: http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/2007/pdfs/orusuit.pdf

Elizabeth, I don't mean to jump down your throat but everyone is focused on the unsubstantiated (stolen) document (the party "press" line) and no one has even thought to wonder who is feeding them.
Elizabeth Conley

It's no fun stumbling on incriminating information, particularly if you in no way anticipated it.. Further, if you stumble across information about a crime you become an accessory to the crime if you destroy it.

Bringing the material to the University's attention is was the least they could do. They probably should have taken more aggressive steps, but I don't blame them for being afraid to.

Privacy isn't as important as integrity and accountability. If someone stumbles into incriminating information about me, I hope they bring it to my attention.

I wanted to claim that there's absolutely nothing "incriminating" on my laptop. Then I rethought things. I'm connected to the internet, so there are some pretty disgusting things in my spam files and other hidden places. Someone could find incriminating material if they looked hard enough. I imagine that someone might have a look at my book shelves and call me to account for reading heretical materials. There's also the possibility that the contents of my trash pails could reveal what a glutton I am.
They might even ask me for an explanation, or take it to someone on the pastoral staff and ask if I'm the kind of woman who should be teaching Sunday School to youth. Under those circumstances, I owe an explanation to the rest of the congregation.

But I'm rambling. The point is, we're supposed to be accountable. Being asked to explain ourselves isn't a personal attack, and making a "counter attack" isn't an appropriate response.

No one wants to learn incriminating things about a Christian Leader. But if we stumble on it, sitting on it is wrong. It's hard to go to a brother in Christ and discuss this sort of thing with him. Further, you have to go alone the first time, and that can take nerves of steel. It's incredibly stressful if his reaction is to terrorize or slander you.

From what I've seen, very few Christians have what it takes to face down a badly behaved leader. Most Christians will cling to any excuse rather than tell the emperor he's stark naked. In many cases, we're right to be afraid.

The Bible wants us to handle these conflicts in a way that gives the sinner every chance to turn away from sin without public humiliation. What if he won't?

PS. I cannot emphasize enough how unpleasant it is to stumble across evidence of malfeasance in a Christian Leader. If you say something, you become public enemy # 1, if you fail to do anything, you're an accomplice. Integrity is not an easy thing. It sure won't win you any popularity contests.

PPS: The Captcha Validation for this post was SERV. What are the chances of that? It makes you think twice before clicking "post comment". I certainly did.

Please folks, remember that between the self righteousness of the Roberts' and the muckraking of the press huddles a few naive Christians who wish they could be serving anywhere else.
The Untold Perspective

"Privacy isn't as important as integrity and accountability. If someone stumbles into incriminating information about me, I hope they bring it to my attention."

So, someone that works for you brings you an incriminating document one of them stumbled upon (stole) from your laptop and bring it to your attention. I suppose you would thank them and let's say you tell them, truthfully, that this was a misunderstanding of facts that you have already dealt with. You ask them to destroy the document and all copies. Unknown to you, your secretary gets mad at them for stumbling on (stealing) a document that she typed.

Now, say they are unconvinced because as your employees they have a right to judge you and there's been talk. So they begin to print copies for others to be aware of your problems and try to get copies to your bosses. They are causing disruptions at your business and their job performance has suffered so you are forced to "release" some and one quits. They immediately go to your sworn enemy who's a lawyer and file suit for wrongful termination and you would respond how?
Elizabeth Conley

That's a pretty complicated set of what ifs. Frankly, your long chain of what ifs could be broken at every link by an act of honesty, humility or kindness. The whole tom-fool tale is far from inevitable.

The best way to handle criticism is to let it run its course without attacking the accusers.

Be understanding, be open, and be patient. Making foolish, inflamatory statements about "The devil trying to steal your ministry" or some other twaddle just makes you look like a blustering fool caught in the act. So does firing your accusers and attacking their character.   These behaviors are consistant with coverups, so they tend to confirm guilt. If your accusers are cowards, the cover up will work. The trouble is, authentic Christianity in the 21st century is not the path of cowards. If your accusers are sincere in their Faith, abuse will only strengthen their will.

It's painful to be accused of things you are innocent of, but lashing out in pain to hurt your accusers makes you look like a bully or a criminal covering his tracks. Grace is a quality of many facets. Knowlege of it grants the serenity to cling to what is right and wait for others to practice discernment.

These dramas have been played out time and time again within ministries large and small. Mature Christians handle these conflicts with honest, mutually respectful conversations. Greater respect and trust develops as a result. Proud, foolish leaders behave in ways that make them, their ministry and Christians as a whole look like hysterical fools. As much as the rest of us pray gullible Christians will stop promoting self-important blow-hards to prominant leadership positions, it seems the temptation is irresistable. These flamboyant types always manage to garner a fanatical following.

The amount of oversight and transparency in an organization is a good indicator of whether or not a scandal with destroy it or make it stronger. If the boss is a prideful fool or a bully, I suggest subordinates begin looking for another place to serve.   Being the accidental object of a narcissist's paranoid hysterics is extremely traumatic for most people. We'd all be well advised to avoid the situation the plaintiffs are in.
The Untold Perspective

"Conflict of interest"

The untold perspective is coming out! Richardson, the attorney for the former ORU faculty, previously was the attorney for (gave council to) Stephanie Cantees, the "owner" of the "STOLEN" (finally that word is in print!) computer document. Because he was aware of it, when he later came into possession of it from the former faculty, he violated the Oklahoma Computer Crimes Act and became part of what "constitutes a felony". See the article:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071103_1_A1_hThea47621
The Untold Perspective

Long statement with no attempt to answer my question.

Elizabeth, I only wanted you to think for yourself (apply it to yourself) about all angles of the issue before concluding what someone has tailored for your predictable reaction.
Phil

That's all well and good. So the information was leaked inappropriately and the courts will decide the legal implications. But this isn't a legal blog. This is a blog about branding, perception, and the impact of media and faith. The truth is, the list is out, and it's pretty damning if it's true. In a media-driven culture, perception is reality. So what are the implications for the university and their mission? How will it affect fundraising and support? What steps should they take to win back the confidence of the public?
http://www.crossroads-creative.com Richard Gaspard

I learned so many things during my tenure at OREA/ORU. I learned how to have faith for healing and financial miracles. But I can remember seeing things there that I didn't quite agree with, and I really believe God spoke to me in that situation. He said that He would never hold me accountable for what Richard or Lindsey did, but that He would hold me accountable for my reactions to what they did. I have put this into practice since then, and it has really set me free to be who I am, and not so dependent on whatever ministry leader I'm working under. It is unfortunate what has happened there, and although I am not an alum (my wife is, 1998), because the university is and will hold a special place in my heart. I just pray that the truth comes out, and that God's healing can begin, but that often starts with the painful process of exposing the wounds and the sin. I don;t want to be "on a soapbox," but please, all of us, pray for ORU.
island girl

I read a few of the articles. A few things stand out:

1) They are so out of touch with reality that they do not even realize how spoiled they have become. Reminds me of when I worked at megaministry back in the 80s. The "big cheese" was speaking to the staff–some 800 or so of us. To illustrate a point, he showed a ring that he was wearing that had tongues wagging. "The truth is," he said with great thunder, "…this is nothing but a $700 CZ."

Behind me, one of the camera men said to another "Wow, that is more than my car cost." CLUELESS!!!

2) The deal with Lindsay and the under age boy is clearly a big nothing. But when you have people pissed off because of the issue in (1), they grab onto this and run with it.

Lord help us…
freethinker

I must agree with Smithee, the first comment…
boonies

i just want you to keep one name in mind….mike nifong. Remember the DA in the Duke lacrosse case? Sexsational allegations, race, class, money , envy, enough sleaze to keep the schedule at FOX Network running full blast through the summer replacement season. ONE little problem…the NC A/G, Roy Cooper , seeing the approaching train wreck and the need for adult supervision, stepped in and declared the three boys Innocent of ANY wrongdoing , based on evidence and the Lack thereof. Mind you, they were already given a fair trial and a good hanging in the 4th Circuit Court of Public Opinion, being white and all….Point being, lets give these people a chance to declare their case in a court where they are UNDER OATH, unlike on Larry King and your papers' front page.

I ,personally, suspect the money allegations are likely true to some degree, but that is my own fallible suspicion. Lets not rush to a judgment we would not want inflicted on ourselves without the benefit of a court of law. fair Enough?
Phil

Actually, this blog isn't about the guilt or innocence so much (as you say, the courts will decide that) – we're more interested in it's implications in the context of the media. In a media driven culture, how should we as followers of Jesus live our lives, respond to allegations like this, create an environment where this doesn't happen, or respond to criticism generally? All important questions that have changed dramatically in the last 30 years as we've found ourselves in a media oriented world. When perception becomes as important as reality in the culture, how does that impact our strategy for reaching the world?
Implications

The funny thing that I find with discussing the implications in the context of the media, is that here on the East Coast, most people don't know who Richard Roberts is, or that there is even a scandal. Really. No local coverage at all in a very "churched" city I live in. Actually, the only real source of info seems to be right from the Tulsa World (online for me), with a few large national news companies picking up bits of it. Larry King was the only real "aired" information found around here that I have seen.

Regarding the Larry King thing, RR actually seemed to show some wisdom by going to a media outlet that was live. He knows that putting words in your mouth and setting someone up is very hard to do with live programming. He also knows that LK does not produce mud-slinging campaigns. What he didn't seem to realize was that his own words might just hurt just as much. LK does have a way to let you snare yourself by giving you so much rope!

How the media really plays, is that the empire was built thanks in part to the reach of television. The spotlight has now shifted from a controlled studio to a personal life.

I don't have a vendetta against the Robert's, but I was there years ago as a student, and as an employee working in the security department / motorpool. I did see things that were slightly questionable to me, and I learned very quickly that if I expected to keep my job (which I desperately needed), then I wouldn't question things. Matter of fact, NOONE felt comfortable questioning ANYTHING. Learning the ropes, I was told quite early on (through a wisper and wink by a high ranking security employee) that things I saw were not to be questioned if I knew what he meant. I won't say that I saw major scandalous things. What I saw did open my eyes, and I did realize that people who questioned were people who would end up resigning or being let go.

That said, I certainly hope that the school can emerge from this. Unfortunately, that is going to be very difficult with the direction of current leadership and their "rubber-stamp" decision making. Hopefully leadership will change, so that the school can have a chance.

As I stated, where I am, the media has ignored it as non-news. Oh – Heritage USA is (err 'was') a stones-throw from here, maybe that is part of it. 8o) But I think that for the most part, this is the sentiment. I have been surprised that the Tulsa World hasn't done any real "investigative" reporting. They have pretty much stuck to the facts. I haven't seen much from them as far as opinion columns either. So overall, I don't think that the media has been too unfair.

The unfair opinions have really seemed to show themselves in forums. This one, not so much, maybe you are just doing a great job with your moderating! But the unfair opinions that I have read have been on both sides. There is obviously a balanced view as well, but I think that as far as the church is concerned, the balance needs to be found on the history we have in the Bible. David was very wealthy for instance, and he did fall but not merely because he was wealthy. To people that categorize sin, that is how you justify your own. David's weakness was another man's wife. Love of money and power may be the weakness of RR. Jealousy or pride may be the sin of the judgemental. But back to David, he DID repent, he DID pay a dear price, but the full judgement of God was withheld because of his repentence.

I can only hope that true repentence births in each of us with regards to our own failures. For Richard, I hope he CAN see the truth and repent for the way he maintained power (fear and firing). I hope he can repent if the love of money caused his stumble. However, there will still likely be some heavy cost as with David. I hope that the University is not altogether lost, for the value that it provides to students of the Word.
Tovah

The response on Larry King was a public relations nightmare. The decision to step down came way too late. Looking hurt and sounding sad wasn't the way to go. If a line of demarcation had been drawn by Richard between personal attacks and attacks against the university, both would have come out looking more credible. As it stands, he looks scared and weak which leads to a perception of guilt–whether or not he is. All very unfortunate. But messy enough to keep the rumor mill rolling and the news/gossip hawks going.
Bill

Having worked at ORU nearly 30 years I was let go along with 42 others a couple of years ago due to the school being tight on money. After reading about cell phone usage and horse stables and clothes, several people could have kept their jobs if the money had been spent better. To me it is not the lawsuit so much but will the BOR really clean house and start running a tight ship

Phil Cooke

NEXT SPEAKING EVENT:

Richard Roberts Takes a "Leave of Absence" from Oral Roberts University

Production : Strategy : Digital Media : Consultation