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.

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

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

It's not like a corner gas station …it's a ministry …built with tax free dollars from the good will gifts of donors.

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.

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.