Speaker 1: Welcome. Today, we're diving into a very common topic here
Speaker 1: on the nonprofits Christian hypocrisy. Specifically, today we're going to
Speaker 1: talk about the fall of Jerry Folwell Junior, followed by
Speaker 1: his triumphant return to Liberty University on homecoming week. It's
Speaker 1: one of those stories that make you question the institutions
Speaker 1: and enforce extreme moral codes, which often they fail to
Speaker 1: follow themselves. Fallwell scandal isn't just about one man. It's
Speaker 1: about the hypocrisy that festers in places like Liberty University,
Speaker 1: where secrecy, repression, and power collide. We'll also look at
Speaker 1: how financial interests influenced by the university's responses. They tried
Speaker 1: to preserve their reputation and avoid alienating Fallwell's loyal following
Speaker 1: while they tried to grapple with the fabricated moral crisis
Speaker 1: that really is brought on by them setting absurd expectations.
Speaker 1: This story is from Religious News by Karen Swallow prior
Speaker 1: or October October fourth, twenty twenty four. Now, Karen is
Speaker 1: going to go to you first, and I was wondering,
Speaker 1: what do you think that this sets about the standards
Speaker 1: of places like Liberty University.
Speaker 2: Well, that's a really interesting question given that in this
Speaker 2: article it's noted that Fallwell Junior had mentioned that he
Speaker 2: didn't think he should be held to a higher standard
Speaker 2: than many of the other individuals in leadership who had
Speaker 2: been caught being involved in some sort of sex scandal
Speaker 2: or other misconduct and had then been quote unquote forgiven
Speaker 2: or allowed back in. And I find that to be
Speaker 2: particularly interesting given the strict moral code of conduct that
Speaker 2: Liberty University has for its students, which includes prohibitions, very
Speaker 2: strict prohibitions against seemingly innocuous things that are regarded as
Speaker 2: sexual misconduct, including handholding, being gay, using pronouns that aren't
Speaker 2: consistent with the sex assigned at birth. These are strictly
Speaker 2: prohibited activities for students at this university that Fallwell has
Speaker 2: self presided over and presumably enforced. And yet he doesn't
Speaker 2: want to be held to a higher standard, by which
Speaker 2: he means not being held accountable for actual sexual misconduct
Speaker 2: involving abuse of his power and that of his and
Speaker 2: his wife's position at the university. So what I'm really
Speaker 2: hearing is that it's not that he was being held
Speaker 2: to a higher standard, it's that he was being held
Speaker 2: to no standard at all apparently.
Speaker 1: I think that we find that far too often in
Speaker 1: organizations like this, that they create, first, as you mentioned,
Speaker 1: an unrealistic expectation they set for everyone involved and act
Speaker 1: surprised when people don't live up to it. But in
Speaker 1: cases like this, oftentimes we see that the people who
Speaker 1: are supposedly upholding this standard to others and enforcing it
Speaker 1: with punitive damages to other people don't live up to
Speaker 1: them themselves. So I don't think that that's something out
Speaker 1: of the ordinary, and unfortunately seems to be something that
Speaker 1: seems to be quite common. So AJ was about you,
Speaker 1: we see this restoration of powerful abusers. Why do you
Speaker 1: think congregations are more inclined to identify with the abuser
Speaker 1: rather than the victim. What what cultural or theological factors
Speaker 1: do you think go into this.
Speaker 3: I think in this case, it just has a lot
Speaker 3: to do with the doctrines that they're taught in church.
Speaker 3: You know, it's all about Jesus forgiving you, and so
Speaker 3: you are meant to forgive everybody just like because Jesus
Speaker 3: says to forgive everyone, and that is exactly what has
Speaker 3: seemed to be happening in situations like with fowl. They
Speaker 3: put aside the victims, and they put them as not
Speaker 3: even the victims themselves. They turn into the perpetrators, and
Speaker 3: the victims are harassed, and then the entire institutions expect
Speaker 3: their abusers to be forgiven.
Speaker 1: I agree. I think that far too often what we
Speaker 1: see is is that we see this prodigal sign comes
Speaker 1: back at end of the fold. Let's congratulate and welcome
Speaker 1: him back, and let's pretend that whatever the ramfications, those
Speaker 1: don't go away. Just because you have the person come back,
Speaker 1: it doesn't fix the problem they created. And really, in
Speaker 1: a situation like this, it seems like that these two
Speaker 1: people were just, by their own admission, it seemed like
Speaker 1: more of an act. Did you get that kind of
Speaker 1: feel care of that this was just an act on
Speaker 1: their part?
Speaker 2: Oh? Absolutely. And this, of course all came about, this
Speaker 2: reinstatement after the settling of their lawsuit, which had to
Speaker 2: do with the university's ability to use the Fallwell name,
Speaker 2: that of Fallwell Senior. I don't think they were trying
Speaker 2: to use Junior's name and likeness quite as much, but
Speaker 2: these legal consequences and followed as soon as those were
Speaker 2: handled and taken care of. All of a sudden, everything
Speaker 2: was fine, and now he's brought back, and it wasn't
Speaker 2: really that we're worried about his sexual misconduct or his
Speaker 2: abuse of his power. And you know, that admission on
Speaker 2: his part basically that it was too much to expect
Speaker 2: that he should, you know, not behave in inappropriate ways
Speaker 2: sexually with students and others at the university is almost
Speaker 2: the same thing as admitting that this student honor code
Speaker 2: and all of these rules are impossibly strict, and their
Speaker 2: prohibitions against you know, almost any kind of sexual conduct,
Speaker 2: even against consenting adults, or even with consenting adults, and
Speaker 2: that's an unrealistic standard. The one that they're enforcing against
Speaker 2: the students is an unrealistic standard. And yet the leadership
Speaker 2: of the university is allowed to go around and engage
Speaker 2: in any kind of behavior, apparently, and then as soon
Speaker 2: as all of the financial and legal issues in the
Speaker 2: background are buttoned up, all of a sudden, well, we
Speaker 2: don't mind, we have to forgive him. We couldn't possibly
Speaker 2: expect someone to abide by any of our rules, apparently.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and apparently it wasn't just for Firewell himself. It
Speaker 3: seemed like some of the documents that the lawsuit showed
Speaker 3: that one of the arguments that they used in the
Speaker 3: defense for him to come back was that the fact
Speaker 3: that other high ranking university officials, including a former president
Speaker 3: and a former dean, had been welcome back on campus
Speaker 3: after they had some type of you know, misconduct like
Speaker 3: having an affair or other sexual scandals, and they argued
Speaker 3: that firewell should not behold, as you said, to a
Speaker 3: higher moral standard than everybody else. So it was like, well,
Speaker 3: you know, they did it, so it's fine, right, like
Speaker 3: I should be able to come back to and you
Speaker 3: know that's what happened. The lasses were dropped and then
Speaker 3: they settled. Then he not only returned to the campus,
Speaker 3: but he did it during the homecoming week, which was
Speaker 3: like gave him like a hero's welcome back and full
Speaker 3: of praise, and you know, it's just it. It came
Speaker 3: down to forgiveness and salvation for the abusers and then
Speaker 3: hush money for the victims so they will just sit
Speaker 3: down and shut up exactly, victims.
Speaker 1: The victims are just an inconvenience to the story that
Speaker 1: they're trying to present. Because look, as you mentioned Aja
Speaker 1: coming back on homecoming, this isn't by accident. They're laying
Speaker 1: out a redemption story and we're all forgiven and everything's good.
Speaker 1: And of course it could have nothing to do with
Speaker 1: the fact that the university was doing very poorly before
Speaker 1: Folwell was involved and then all of a sudden he
Speaker 1: made it a very profitable institution. I'm sure it had
Speaker 1: absolutely nothing about that, and all about the forgiveness of
Speaker 1: our near and dear Lord Jesus. Okay, maybe I don't
Speaker 1: think any of that. But Carab, did you have something
Speaker 1: to say You were talking before I interrupted.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, no, I mean I think I interrupted you.
Speaker 2: But you know, I don't want to be held to
Speaker 2: a higher standard or anything on the interrupting and the
Speaker 2: conversation turn taking. But I do think exactly as both
Speaker 2: of you have pointed out, this is just again another
Speaker 2: example where we're celebrating the abuser and the powerful leader
Speaker 2: who has engaged in misconduct while essentially punishing or hushing
Speaker 2: up anyone who had the temerity to point it out.
Speaker 2: And it's always the other people involved in these things
Speaker 2: that are then the victims that are blamed or accused
Speaker 2: of instigating the wrongdoing. And you know, we never hear
Speaker 2: from them again, or about them being reinstated or having
Speaker 2: any sort of restitution. But here we are celebrating the
Speaker 2: homecoming of mister Folwell, returning again to be reinstated in
Speaker 2: a position to engage in this same behavior again, with
Speaker 2: him having essentially admitted that he thinks the standard of
Speaker 2: conduct that they were holding him to was impossible. So
Speaker 2: what does that tell you about his future behavior?
Speaker 1: You know, one thing I did find interesting is that
Speaker 1: both he and his wife essentially came out with you know,
Speaker 1: it was an all in act. You know, he said,
Speaker 1: now I had their last name, but you know, people
Speaker 1: expect me to be religious, but I'm really not that
Speaker 1: kind of guy. And that's fine. You know, he probably
Speaker 1: have a happier and healthier life if he didn't live
Speaker 1: under an unrealistic expectation like that. But I think that
Speaker 1: that's something that religion tends to do, not just to
Speaker 1: its leadership, but even worse, because they get the buy
Speaker 1: and get the pass if they do something wrong. But
Speaker 1: it's all the other people that go and live into
Speaker 1: at Liberty University and spend their lives thinking this is
Speaker 1: what I have to be, and then go out and
Speaker 1: leave the university trying to be that person and really
Speaker 1: setting themselves up for failure. Now, one thing I did
Speaker 1: notice is that I did read where one of the
Speaker 1: people stated it costs. Rachel Donald Hollanders said, it cost
Speaker 1: you something to side with the vulnerable. Why is it
Speaker 1: that siding with the victims of abuse and religion communities
Speaker 1: often come to such a high social or personal cost?
Speaker 1: And how can we encourage more people to take that stand?
Speaker 1: AJ wanted to throw that question to you, what do
Speaker 1: you think?
Speaker 3: I truly don't understand this because you can see the
Speaker 3: harm that is being done to another human being, and
Speaker 3: you will think that naturally you will want to protect
Speaker 3: that person that is that is being victimized, right, But
Speaker 3: it seems that in all of these religious settings is
Speaker 3: the complete opposite. Like we said earlier, they're just victimizing
Speaker 3: the abusers. And so I think that making sure that
Speaker 3: we speak up and that we will let these people's
Speaker 3: uh voice what's happened to them, advocating bringing awareness will
Speaker 3: probably and hopefully remove the stigma around the victims of abuse.
Speaker 3: And you know, bringing the abusers to light without making
Speaker 3: them the victim, is the most important step. I don't
Speaker 3: I don't really know exactly what we could do to
Speaker 3: make that happen. But I know that that is definitely
Speaker 3: the key point, because you know, when victims can see
Speaker 3: that they're not being realified or humiliated, then they'll feel
Speaker 3: more comfortable sharing their stories knowing that they will get
Speaker 3: justice and not just be put aside and paid to
Speaker 3: shut up.
Speaker 1: Yes, I think that that is one very important thing,
Speaker 1: is actually allowing people, making people realize that it's a
Speaker 1: safe environment for them to do that. I think one
Speaker 1: of the problems though, is that institutionally, when you come
Speaker 1: to issues like churches and things like this, I think
Speaker 1: there's a vested interest in churches and church related organizations
Speaker 1: oftentimes to do quite the opposite, and not even necessarily
Speaker 1: so they can be an overt predator like these two
Speaker 1: people have been, but to be just predatorial in nature
Speaker 1: towards taking advantage of other people in times of needs.
Speaker 1: In situations like that, it kind of it's part. It's
Speaker 1: almost like it's part of the program for these people
Speaker 1: to be in positions of authority, and almost by definition
Speaker 1: it means that people are going to take advantage of
Speaker 1: that authority.
Speaker 2: What was your take care of Yes, I agree with
Speaker 2: that it's it's really tough to say what could be
Speaker 2: done to, you know, encourage more people to side with
Speaker 2: the victims in this because, as you both pointed out,
Speaker 2: the social costs are so high because the system almost
Speaker 2: has that built into it. Because as soon as you
Speaker 2: start siding with the victims and saying like, oh, here
Speaker 2: we see this person has been harassed or coerced or
Speaker 2: taken advantage of, we're now suggesting and you know, I
Speaker 2: don't mean to paint with two broader brush here, but
Speaker 2: it's often young women and girls that are victims in
Speaker 2: these instances, or children. We're now taking away this excuse
Speaker 2: that's so often used to vilify the victims, which is
Speaker 2: that they somehow encouraged this, or they invited this through
Speaker 2: their own sin or misconduct or lesciviousness, or whatever the
Speaker 2: case may be. And as soon as we start siding
Speaker 2: with them and saying, no, this person was actually victimized,
Speaker 2: they were coerced, they were intimidated, they were forced, or
Speaker 2: whatever the case may be, all of a sudden, now
Speaker 2: we're placing more accountability on the people in positions of power,
Speaker 2: and nobody in a position of power wants to allow
Speaker 2: themselves to be placed at a greater risk or apparently
Speaker 2: held to a higher standard, or any standard at all.
Speaker 2: So I think we're back to that situation again, where
Speaker 2: as long as the same people are in these positions
Speaker 2: of power, there's going to continue to be enormous pressure
Speaker 2: for everyone else in the congregation or the flock, or
Speaker 2: whatever the case may be, to not side with them.
Speaker 3: It's interesting that you mentioned that victims are usually women
Speaker 3: and young girls, which is, I absolutely agree with that,
Speaker 3: But it seemed like the worlds had like no limit
Speaker 3: on who they were praying on. So if you need
Speaker 3: something to be disgusted by this Halloween, let me tell
Speaker 3: you about his wife. Okay, so this story goes beyond
Speaker 3: just the pastor coming back, you know, after committing since
Speaker 3: because you know, obviously he was banned from the university
Speaker 3: because he was posting inappropriate, sexually charged comments, photos and
Speaker 3: videos of young female students, which is, you know what
Speaker 3: you pointed out about a woman being the main target.
Speaker 3: But he wasn't the only one that was banned from
Speaker 3: the university. His wife, Becky was too because she was
Speaker 3: part of a separate sex scandal, and one of the
Speaker 3: most notable things about it was that she was having
Speaker 3: a sexual relationship with a young pool boy for several years.
Speaker 3: But this wasn't a secret to her husband. It's just
Speaker 3: like God, it seems like Farewell Junior like to watch
Speaker 3: because he will apparently the story goes, is that he
Speaker 3: will sit on the corner of the room and quietly
Speaker 3: watch his wife have sex with the poor boy. So
Speaker 3: I do not want to shame people for, you know,
Speaker 3: their sexual taste of what they do as consent to adults,
Speaker 3: because everybody's body autonomy that we always talk about. But
Speaker 3: it seemed like in this case, it was just a
Speaker 3: very naive young man and they were totally completely predatory
Speaker 3: towards him, and they lured him by promising business partnerships
Speaker 3: and real estate dealings and money, and both Farwell Junior
Speaker 3: and his wife used their position of power and authority
Speaker 3: to abuse this young man.
Speaker 1: Yes, you know, I thought somethings that was very important
Speaker 1: and I completely agree is that. You know, I don't
Speaker 1: care if missus Folwell and the poor boy had a relationship.
Speaker 1: I don't care what Fallwell Junior's relationship in that situation was. Either.
Speaker 1: It is completely not a concern to me until until
Speaker 1: you start telling other people what they should do, what
Speaker 1: they can and cannot do, kicking people out of school
Speaker 1: for doing far less. You know, when you start thinking
Speaker 1: about what they did and compare it to what they
Speaker 1: have cost people. I mean, and in the long run,
Speaker 1: they might be better off without a career that you
Speaker 1: get from Liberty University. But still that's not my choice
Speaker 1: to make. But someone made that choice for them, who
Speaker 1: wasn't me, who supposedly was their mentor and their guide,
Speaker 1: and someone who was in their leadership to make them
Speaker 1: that supposed better person that you know, the the illusion
Speaker 1: the facade is supposed to create. I mean, we know
Speaker 1: none of its reality. You know, we've talked about people,
Speaker 1: other people in the organization, and then their their misdeeds.
Speaker 1: They're the misdeeds of the Fallwells. There's misdeeds that go
Speaker 1: around for everybody. Okay, great, but once again that goes
Speaker 1: back to if you set an unrealistic expectation in the
Speaker 1: first place. This is what happens when you do that,
Speaker 1: when you don't talk about things and you're not open
Speaker 1: about people being well, real people, and that's a whole
Speaker 1: lot of things. It's not something you could put inside
Speaker 1: of a box and caroen wanted to know, Is there
Speaker 1: anything anything else that's struck you about this story you
Speaker 1: wanted to discuss?
Speaker 2: You know, really, I think just one of the main
Speaker 2: things that I found fascinating about this story was the
Speaker 2: way that the sort of the breadth and the range
Speaker 2: of the misconduct that took place and that was ultimately forgiven.
Speaker 2: It ranged from not only things that we would all
Speaker 2: identify as predatory or coercive or taking advantage of naive
Speaker 2: people are those who you have an undue amount of
Speaker 2: influence over, but also it included things that perhaps the
Speaker 2: folks at Liberty University regard as immoral, but secular people
Speaker 2: might not, such as the you know, various kinds of
Speaker 2: sexual relationships that Fallwell and Becky were having, and you know,
Speaker 2: different kinds of proclivity and tastes. And yet no matter
Speaker 2: what the behavior was, you know, minor to actually predatory,
Speaker 2: I never saw any distinction really made between any of
Speaker 2: those in any of the discussion of these incidents coming
Speaker 2: from the university, And that lack of distinction between things
Speaker 2: that are actively predatory and harming victims and abusing people
Speaker 2: versus things that someone has read the Bible and decided
Speaker 2: they have a distaste for no distinction made whatsoever, which really,
Speaker 2: to me just kind of speaks to this complete and
Speaker 2: utter lack of a sense of accountability to other human
Speaker 2: beings that's coming out of this attitude towards the behavior
Speaker 2: that's being tolerated and allowed in leadership. And I just
Speaker 2: found that rather.
Speaker 3: Galling, indeed a j anything you want to add, you know,
Speaker 3: I think that here we have to focus on what
Speaker 3: the institution are doing at large, right they need to
Speaker 3: stop this whole Jesus forgives you, and so do we mentality.
Speaker 3: I'm not a guys forgiveness because I think that abusers
Speaker 3: are often in need of help as well. To hear
Speaker 3: what about trauma they you know, may come with that
Speaker 3: led them to that behavior. And so the issue is
Speaker 3: that churches and institutions just cleanse the sins with religion
Speaker 3: and do absolutely nothing to solve the root cause of
Speaker 3: the problem. And you know, this guy needed therapy, not Jesus.
Speaker 1: You know, I have to say that I completely agree
Speaker 1: with that. And now that I think is one of
Speaker 1: the easy things that we can all clearly recognize in
Speaker 1: this situation is that as we've all hit on, these
Speaker 1: people need help. I don't think they're going to find
Speaker 1: it at an altar. I don't think they're going to
Speaker 1: find it praying to, you know, to Jesus or any
Speaker 1: other god. But I think that this mentality and this
Speaker 1: live and live all is forgiven mentality just allows this
Speaker 1: cycle to continue rather than actually address it.