Posted on 09/26/2023 12:02:03 AM PDT by Morgana
Former Liberty University president and chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. has accused multiple past and current members of the Evangelical Christian university's senior leadership team of sexual misconduct and self-dealing in an amended lawsuit.
First filed in July, the lawsuit also alleges the exploitation of the trademark and image of his father, Jerry Falwell Sr.
In his initial filing of the lawsuit on July 27, Falwell, who was forced to resign as president of the university in the summer of 2020 over a sex scandal, accused the institution founded by his father in 1971 of profiting from Jerry Falwell Sr.'s "brand of religious goods and services" without consulting the Falwell family or having the "authorization of the Dr. Jerry L. Falwell Family Trust."
The amended lawsuit, filed by Falwell's attorneys on Sept. 13, now names his brother, Liberty University Chancellor the Rev. Jonathan Falwell, and the school's President Emeritus Jerry Prevo, as defendants.
The court filing paints Liberty's leadership team as vultures who used the publicized sex scandal involving him, his wife and a pool boy as an opportunity to wrest control of the university's nearly $3.5 billion empire that exists largely thanks to his work, out of his hands.
"Commencing no later than the summer of 2020, certain members of the Executive Committee and the Board of Trustees maneuvered to eliminate Mr. Falwell from the leadership of Liberty and wrest control over the University and its sizable $2 billion endowment, upon information and belief, for their own benefit, without oversight by or interference from Mr. Falwell, who they knew would seek to protect the institution his father founded and stand in the way of their attempts to exploit Liberty for their own gain," the lawsuit states.
"Indeed, after Mr. Falwell left Liberty in August 2020, these members directed Liberty to dole out hundreds of thousands of dollars in self-dealing transactions, purportedly as 'donations,' to organizations controlled by these members and/or their close affiliates."
Among the close associates listed in the lawsuit is Franklin Graham, leader of Samaritan's Purse and president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.
"Jerry Prevo assumed the presidency of Liberty University on an interim basis in August 2020, which role he held until May 2023. He now holds the title of President Emeritus. Prior to and concurrent with his interim presidency, Prevo was a member on the Board of Trustees and its Executive Committee, positions he continues to hold. William F. Graham IV became Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees in 2021. Prevo served for many years on the board of Samaritan's Purse, which is, upon information and belief, under the control of Franklin Graham, father of William Graham and president of Samaritan's Purse," the lawsuit states.
"Upon information and belief, Franklin Graham is Prevo's closest advisor; during the limited times Prevo appeared on campus to fulfill his duties as interim president, he would speak with Graham virtually every day by phone before making any decisions. In the fiscal year ending June 2021, Liberty paid $200,050 to Samaritan's Purse. In the same year, Liberty paid another $200,000 to Hope Partners International, which is an organization that is, upon information and belief, controlled by Kirk Nowery, the former Chief Operating Officer of Samaritan's Purse," it continues. "In the following year, Liberty paid the organization another $414,960. Upon information and belief, Hope Partners International secured the 'donation' from Liberty by virtue of its ties to Prevo and Graham."
In a statement to The Christian Post on Monday, Graham confirmed he and Prevo are longtime friends but appeared to dismiss any notion of impropriety in their business relationship.
"Liberty University is a great school and I knew its founder, Jerry Falwell, Sr. My son Will has served on the Board of Trustees there since 2014. Samaritan's Purse is supported by hundreds of thousands of individuals and organizations, and LU has been one of them. A Christian school giving to support missions and evangelism through Samaritan's Purse or any other like-minded organization is not unusual. As an example, one of the projects Liberty University gave to support was Samaritan's Purse relief work in Ukraine, where we have provided more than 200 million pounds of food in the war-torn country," Graham said.
"Samaritan's Purse has partnerships with many different universities. This year alone, we have had interns from 56 schools across the country, including Liberty University. These students regularly serve on volunteer mission teams in partnership with Samaritan's Purse. Right now, students from Liberty are working with our teams in response to the devastating wildfire in Maui as well as storms in Florida, and we have a team of staff currently on the LU campus for Global Focus Week, training students in North American disaster response."
Graham added that Prevo has been his friend for more than 20 years after they were introduced to each other by Falwell Sr. when Graham held his first evangelistic crusade in Anchorage, Alaska.
"I applaud [Prevo] for steering the school back to its original vision to train champions for Christ," Graham said.
Liberty University also said in a statement to CP that Falwell Jr.'s allegations are "improper and unsupported."
"In response to Liberty's compelling motion to dismiss his complaint, Jerry Falwell, Jr. filed an amended complaint containing improper and unsupported allegations designed to diminish former colleagues, family, and friends and to discredit the university where he formerly served," the statement notes.
"These personal attacks have no place in a legal dispute over the use of a person's name, image, and likeness. Liberty will file the appropriate response to these claims in due time and defend its legal right to continue the use of Dr. Jerry Falwell's name. Furthermore, we stand by our initial statement that Liberty University and its Board of Trustees have only sought to honor the visionary leadership of Dr. Jerry Falwell and the mission of training Champions for Christ."
While Falwell Jr., his brother, and sister, Jeannie, are co-trustees of the Dr. Jerry L. Falwell Family Trust, he argues in the amended lawsuit that Jonathan Falwell is trying to prevent his case from moving forward by claiming he had not recused himself from the operation of the Trust even though he previously stated this to Falwell Jr.
"Mr. Falwell commenced this action on July 27, 2023, on behalf of both the Trust, for which he was, at the time, a co-trustee, and himself individually and as a beneficiary of the Trust as well as Dr. Falwell's next of kin. Prior to doing so, Mr. Falwell consulted with his brother, Jonathan Falwell ('Jonathan'), who also a co-trustee of the Trust, during which Jonathan acknowledged he has a conflict of interest as it relates to his duties with respect to Liberty's use of the Falwell IP," the complaint states.
"As detailed herein, Jonathan is a high ranking official, trustee, and employee of Liberty, which is infringing and damaging the Falwell IP. During these communications, Jonathan also agreed to recuse himself from participating in Trust decisions as it relates to Liberty's use of the Falwell IP. Accordingly, Mr. Falwell commenced suit against Liberty, including by exercising his authority as the sole nonconflicted, non-recused co-trustee of the Trust."
Falwell Jr.'s lawsuit contends that "Jonathan inexplicably reversed course and claimed his consent was needed for the action to proceed, which he now asserts the Trust does not have."
Falwell Jr. filed a motion in the Circuit Court for the city of Lynchburg, "seeking a formal disqualification of Jonathan from acting in his capacity as co-trustee as it relates to Liberty's use of the Falwell IP."
"As detailed in the Disqualification Action, Jonathan suffers from a clear conflict of interest as it relates to Liberty's use of the Falwell IP. As a co-trustee of the Trust, he owes fiduciary duties to the Trust and all its beneficiaries to protect and maximize the value of the Falwell IP," the lawsuit states. "He is also a high ranking official, trustee, and employee of Liberty, which is infringing and damaging the Falwell IP. Indeed, as alleged herein, Jonathan's conflict of interest has prompted him to take actions, or fail to take actions, that constitute a breach of his fiduciary duties to the Trust."
Falwell Jr.'s lawsuit suggests that Jonathan Falwell is pushing back against the litigation for his own financial gain.
The lawsuit claims that Jonathan Falwell has served on Liberty's Board of Trustees for more than 30 years, and since April 2021 through the present, he has also been Liberty's campus chaplain. From 2010 until this March when he was promoted to chancellor, Jonathan Falwell also served as Liberty's vice chancellor for spiritual affairs.
Along with being "paid at least a six-figure salary" and "access to numerous financial perks," Jonathan Falwell also has access to the university's private jet and private vehicles.
"Upon information and belief, Jonathan has recently accepted another financial perk of the Chancellor's position and is now in the process of moving into a home owned by Liberty on top of Liberty Mountain overlooking the campus. Upon information and belief, at Jonathan's request, Liberty is also paying for the construction of a swimming pool on the property for the use of Jonathan and his family," the lawsuit states. "In addition, five of Jonathan's family members, including children and spouses of children, have recently become employed by Liberty in various roles."
The filing further argues that Jonathan Falwell is also benefiting financially from his relationship as senior pastor of Thomas Road Baptist Church, a role he took over after his father died in 2007.
"Through his relationship to TRBC, Jonathan is beholden to Liberty's interests in additional ways. For example, on three separate occasions between 2007 when Jonathan became senior pastor of TRBC and August 2020, Liberty paid millions of dollars to rescue TRBC from financial ruin," the lawsuit alleges.
Falwell Jr.'s lawyers also criticized Liberty University's board of trustees and executive committee for the unequal treatment he and his wife received compared with other high-ranking university officials who engaged in sexual misconduct.
"The standard these members of the Board and its Executive Committee purported to hold Mr. Falwell to was different from the standard that Liberty had applied to other high-ranking officials of the University. For example, one former University President was sued by a former Liberty employee for sexual harassment, and Liberty retained him in that position notwithstanding that a payment had to be made to that employee as a result," the lawsuit states.
"And it is common knowledge within the relevant communities that Ed Hindson, a recently deceased televangelist and former dean of Liberty's School of Divinity, had an extramarital affair during his time at Liberty, and Liberty nonetheless employed him as a high-ranking official after the affair."
The lawsuit also mentions former Liberty Provost Ron Godwin "had an extramarital affair with his secretary while working at a Liberty affiliate Moral Majority, Inc., but, again, Liberty nonetheless employed him as a high-ranking official after the affair."
"A current member of the Executive Committee has admitted to previously having more than one affair. All of these incidents involved situations in which officials themselves were engaged in affairs or other misconduct, in contrast to Mr. Falwell, who had not engaged in similar misconduct or had any affair. And Liberty nonetheless had permitted these individuals to continue in its employ, consistent with a long-standing culture of forgiveness that is part and parcel of Dr. Falwell's brand of evangelicalism."
The lawsuit states that Falwell Jr.'s work at the university was "responsible for Liberty climbing out of approximately $100 million in debt" to become the powerhouse university it is today.
"Under Mr. Falwell's leadership, Liberty's finances were transformed from being crippled by debt to possessing nearly $3.5 billion in net assets and one of the largest and fastest growing endowments of any university in the nation," the lawsuit argues.
The lawsuit contends that the relationship between his family and the university is now so bad he is no longer allowed to be on the campus.
"Once Mr. Falwell was gone, Liberty dug in and continued to treat the Falwells in an ugly manner inconsistent with the principles and values associated with the JERRY FALWELL brand," the lawsuit explains.
"This included, among other things, banning the Falwells from campus grounds (where Dr. Falwell — Mr. Falwell's father — is interred); 'photoshopping' them out of pictures; taking down photos of the Falwells that had been long-displayed on campus; harassing Mr. Falwell through meritless litigation, and depriving Mr. Falwell of retirement funds. The JERRY FALWELL brand does not stand for such abhorrent treatment, which is antithetical to the reputation by which it is known."
The lives and careers of Liberty University’s leadership (including Falwell, Jr.) sound like it could provide the material for a Netflix series: “Preacher Kids Gone Wild.” And it demonstrates one of the reasons why the Roman Catholic Church (wisely or not) originally went for priestly celibacy: too many offspring who are entitled and undisciplined when the clergy are married.
“And it demonstrates one of the reasons why the Roman Catholic Church (wisely or not) originally went for priestly celibacy: too many offspring who are entitled and undisciplined when the clergy are married.”
Sexual misconduct will always manifest itself one way or the other, as it has in the celibate priesthood in the Catholic church having a history of homosexual relationships rather than heterosexual ones. Limit heterosexual and you will get homosexual behavior. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Little community churches are struggling to pay the electric bill, while some of the financial schemes of these big churches want to make me throw up.
The authorities ought to come clean on the opioid problem in Lynchburg as well, and the links to Liberty U.
How about we let God’s word tell us what a good pastor / priest is?
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;
Mandating celibacy only created a bigger problem, it did not solve a problem.
It never improves anything when we add to God’s word our own desires or intentions, no matter how noble we may think it is.
Yet, with a general decay of standards, there were also more than a few episodes of heterosexual priests who strayed. I believe that some were even deliberately protected by the "gay mafia" as way to divert attention from their broad and systemic misconduct.
Although little known, there are validly married Catholic priests in the US and worldwide in the several Eastern Rite Catholic Churches that acknowledge the Pope's authority. The most sensible resolution for the issue to me seems to be to keep priestly celibacy in general but establish a separate Roman Catholic ordinate of married priests under rules similar to those applied by the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches.
As part of this evangelization there was a strategy to establish Christianity and its priests as different from the local pagan priests and shamans. Distinct and austere dress and celibacy were part of that. Since torture and martyrdom were often also involved, requiring celibacy tended to weed out those unwillingness for the full sacrifice of self.
As I said
“It never improves anything when we add to God’s word our own desires or intentions, no matter how noble we may think it is.”
You are basically trying to justify how “man” knows better than God as to what constitutes the requirements for God’s priesthood.
Do you honestly believed God overlooked the challenges of early evangelism and needed man to correct the requirements He Himself created?
Where does God say “require celibacy” to ensure willingness to serve? I would think the Creator of everything might have mentioned such an extreme requirement if it was actually so.
Matt 19:10-12 - Jesus lays the foundation for the Catholic Church call to priestly celibacy. Verse 10 ends with “... there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.”
The Catholic priest is acting as Jesus Christ (”Alter Christus” or “in Persona Christi”) in the administration of the sacraments; he is no longer merely a man. Jesus was not married, so the Church, by extension, recommends priests not be married.
Thousands of years of prayer and fasting have gone into the thinking and decisions of the Church. The path is not easy, though it is simple.
Peace.
You have wildly mis-read that verse and read it out of context from the chapter itself.
Math 19 was our Lord’s response to the Pharisees when they tried to test him about marriage and divorce. Our lord’s reply was specific to how sanctified and committed a marriage should be, one man, one women, no divorce. His reference to being a eunuch was specific to those who can not treat marriage as such and therefore accept celibacy, it was Him showing how serious a marriage must be approached. Basically if you cannot treat marriage that seriously, remain celibate. No where does he align this to being in the priesthood.
Classic example of taking one verse and applying eisegesis. It does not matter what you want the verse to say, one must let God’s word interpret God’s word.
The verse I quoted was specific to the subject of priests and the chapter itself supports that directly. What is known as exegesis, one should not push their own presuppositions into God’s word.
The verse you refer to does not support your opinion.
Oh and I must add, in your thousands of years of “mans” fasting and prayer interpretation you are not forced to explain how God was wrong when he said a priest should be a man of one wife. You have set up a contradiction against God’s word.
Jesus addressed this as well when he talked to the Pharisees who with at least centuries of tradition allowed giving donations to the temple above caring for one’s parents
Math 15:3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ a and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ b 5But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
Cuck klown with suppressed homo tendencies
What sort of man enjoys watching his wife get railed by a younger “stamina” man?
A few years ago, I read of a young priest in Marseilles whose parish church was in an area that had many Muslims. To the astonishment of local Muslims, unlike his predecessor, he went about in a full cassock and addressed Muslims in a friendly manner in perfect Arabic.
The priests got to know the local imams and became friendly with them, often being asked about Catholicism and its defining aspects like the Mass, the sacraments, and the reason for Roman Catholic practices like priests being celibate. Gradually, relations between the Muslims and local Catholics improved. Lapsed Catholics began to return to church.
Was Muslim interest in priestly celibacy part of what opened the door to conversation? So it seemed.
True, except that Eastern Rite Catholic priests can be and often are married. There is a theological basis for priestly celibacy but it is not required.
Can you stick to the point you made, which was the defense of the RC church’s current requirement on priestly celibacy.
I am aware of what you wrote, but in this conversation it only serves as a diversion from the original point. The point is, in my opinion, the Bible clearly teaches priests can have a wife and it does not support any requirement to the contrary.
What you just wrote appears as an attempt to obscure and change what you originally were defending in the conversation.
Sorry, meant to address my last post to Montana_Sam
Really? You want to censor my comments so that I am required to agree with you? Obviously, I (and the Roman Catholic Church) simply do not agree with your claim that the Bible forbids priestly celibacy.
You are free to your own opinion. As I am mine. Peace.
Guess you missed my post above, I misread your post and was thinking I was responding to someone else, said Sorry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.