The Liberty Situation, continued.
As I’ve mentioned before, getting The Unlikely Disciple stocked in the Liberty campus bookstore has been harder than passing a camel through the eye of a needle. First, Chancellor Jerry Falwell, Jr. pulled it from the shelves. Then, after being reviewed (and approved) by a faculty committee, the book returned to the shelves, accompanied by a three-paragraph disclaimer, which you can see hovering above the books in the photo below.
The full text of the disclaimer reads:
Readers of the Unlikely Disciple should be aware that many factual inaccuracies were identified in this book by Liberty University faculty and staff reviewers. Some examples of the factual errors: the book quotes Dr. Falwell as saying the third world doesn’t need food and water, only the gospel. He never made such a statement and often preached that Christians should not expect the hungry and the homeless to accept the gospel until Christians had first met their needs to be fed and clothed.
The book also perpetuates the myth that Dr. Falwell accused Tinky Winky of being gay. In fact, Dr. Falwell had never heard of Tinky Winky when an AP reporter asked him about an editorial in his National Liberty Journal newspaper that cited reports from the Washington Post that Tinky Winky might have been meant to portray a “gay” character. The book is well written but contains quite a bit of fiction.
In the opinion of the reviewers, these inaccuracies raise questions about the credibility of the author and the accuracy of any unverifiable statements or quotes contained in the book. Readers should be skeptical about the veracity of any information contained in The Unlikely Disciple. Readers are also cautioned that The Unlikely Disciple contains offensive sexual references that Liberty University does not recommend for student readers.
I wasn’t going to address the disclaimer publicly, but I’ve gotten enough e-mails from Liberty students asking about the alleged inaccuracies in the book that I felt I had to respond. Until I’m sent a list of the “many” factual errors in the book, I can assume that the only two worth rebutting are the ones mentioned on the disclaimer. So let’s talk about those.
1) “The book quotes Dr. Falwell as saying the third world doesn’t need food and water, only the gospel. He never made such a statement.”
In a convocation speech he gave during my Liberty semester, Dr. Falwell said, “What is it that world citizens need most today? As hungry as some are, it’s not food. It is not material things. It is not education. What this world needs most is the word of God.”
For the audio clip of this quote, click here.
2) “The book also perpetuates the myth that Dr. Falwell accused Tinky Winky of being gay.”
Not only does the book not perpetuate the Tinky Winky myth, it actively dispels it. From page 193:
“At one point, we’re talking about my upcoming interview with Dr. Falwell, and Max tells me that I should ask him about the time he “outed the gay Teletubby.” I remember learning that Dr. Falwell’s comments about Tinky-Winky may not have been entirely his – they originated in an unsigned editorial in his National Liberty Journal newsletter.”
3) As for the “offensive sexual references” bit, I’ll plead guilty as charged. However, I don’t think that Liberty students are too delicate to read a little blue humor, especially given that the vast majority of the sex references in the book were made by Liberty students.
I have tons of respect for Liberty and its students, many of whom have written me supportive notes since the book came out. And as I said before, I’m glad that the bookstore committee decided to stock the book (and that they called it “well-written” — blurb for the paperback edition?). But this disclaimer has me shaking my head. It’s one thing to dislike my book. It’s another to attack my credibility with false allegations. In the face of a book that attempts to portray Liberty fairly and even-handedly, formulating a sloppy, ad hominem response like the one posted in the Liberty bookstore hardly seems like the reasonable – or the Christian – thing to do.
interesting…
— Jaimee
April 3, 2009, 11:41 am
I’m sorry, Kevin.
I’m quite certain this is not the opinion of most people here who have read the book. I doubt that even most of the reviewers shared the belief. I’m certain that Dr. Karen Prior’s review more accurately reflects the views of the vast majority of us.
I do think the Falwell comment was taken out of context, just slightly. He recognized food was needed… but that the Gospel was, ultimately, of more importance. However, I can see that in the course of one convocation, or even one semester, that this might not be sufficiently clear. Most of us Evangelicals, Falwell included in his later years, would certainly agree that you should give a starving man some food before you try to convert him.
-Joshua (WordFlyer)
— Joshua (WordFlyer)
April 3, 2009, 1:14 pm
I just got it through Interlibrary Loan. Looking forward to reading it.
I suppose LU felt like they had to post a disclaimer just in case someone thought LU agreed with everything you wrote and then complained that they weren’t warned about you and your dirty mouth-er, pen…but, goodness, couldn’t they have just said, “Liberty University does not agree with everything said in this book” or something…though I suppose you should feel flattered that they think you’re going to influence the students down the wrong path.
— Bethany
April 3, 2009, 1:15 pm
BTW,
I love that it’s right over Every Man’s Battle!
— Joshua (WordFlyer)
April 3, 2009, 1:27 pm
…or woman’s battle, if that’s what that is.
— Joshua (WordFlyer)
April 3, 2009, 1:28 pm
Haven’t read it, but certain it’s well written and interesting.
However, I’m looking forward to the say someone writes a book like this to say,”I don’t have respect for Liberty University, and this is why…”
— Screw Lucy
April 3, 2009, 2:59 pm
I agree with Joshua’s comments above, in regards to Dr. Prior’s review. In the 4 years that I spent at LU in the earlier part of the decade, I vividly remember time and time again, where LU and Falwell Ministries had to spin the words of their “leader”…to get the press to back off.
Essentially, they have done the very same thing to you and the book by addressing two minor issues and not addressing the major point of the book.
Kevin, I have the utmost respect for you, the book and what you have accomplished here. Keep it up. Thank you.
— phil c
April 3, 2009, 11:47 pm
[...] strictest sense of the world. And by that I mean that it’s not even the slightest bit true, as Roose himself explains in his response to the disclaimer: In a convocation speech he gave during my Liberty semester, Dr. Falwell said, “What is it that [...]
— Kevin Roose exposes Liberty University’s lies « Skepacabra
April 4, 2009, 12:25 am
Hi Kevin,
I haven’t had a chance to read your book yet, but I am fascinated. I attended and worked at a college that considered LU to be “liberal” as well as Bob Jones. I am very eager to read your book and see what similarity there are between life at LU and life on the gulf. Guessed which one yet?
In some ways I did the reverse of your project. I spent a year at UCLA to see that side of the God divide. Having grown up in the bubble of fundamentalism, I shocked many people by going into the “belly of the beast.” (So one person told me)
I do appreciate your open-minded viewpoint and wish you well.
— Lowrianne
April 4, 2009, 8:39 pm
Kevin,
I just finished reading your book and it is a fascinating story. However, the Falwell “food and water” quote is clearly taken out of context and unfair to the extreme. You discredit yourself and the otherwise good work you have done by even trying to defend yourself on this point.
As for your assertion that an athiest had never been invited to debate at Liberty prior to the Rational Response Squad, that is factually incorrect. Then-athiest Dr. Antony Flew accepted an invitation to participate in a debate with Liberty professor Dr. Gary Habermas in the late eighties. This fact debunks your stereotypical assertion that Dr. Falwell never would have allowed an athiest to debate on campus.
If, in the future, you are going to be this sloppy with your research and agenda-driven in your conclusions, then it is clear that you are well on your way to becoming a yellow journalist of the first rank. Congratulations.
— John
April 8, 2009, 5:25 pm
Hm, i’m very puzzled at the disclaimer. I can definitely see why they would include one due to language, etc (someone cfaw mother would be bound to complain haha)but I’ve been here 4 years and did not notice a great many factual errors. There were a few minor things, yes, but nothing that should cause great concern. Ah well, at least they’re selling it.
Oh & as to the sexual references, good point that LU students were making the majority of them. You portrayed a very interesting subculture here at LU. People talk about sex. alot. Many probably more in jest than a few of the guys you quoted, but it still is a cultural constant. Perhaps faculty dont realize this? Dunno.
— Lara
April 9, 2009, 12:01 am
Kevin,
Excellent read, I am thoroughly enjoying your book, so much so that I am actually on your blog, the first time I felt compelled to visit an author’s blog.
I don’t understand, however, how after spending a semester at Liberty you can say that “respect” that institution.
Having respect for the new friends you made there - understandable. Writing about Liberty with a respectful tone - I get that. But I wish I could understand what about an institution, which inculcates young men and women with pseudoscientific garbage and a hateful ideology and then sends them out in the real world -often in positions of power where they can influence public policy - is worthy of your respect?
— Chris
April 9, 2009, 11:12 pm
Chris, having finished the book within a few days of its release, I really don’t think you get it at all.
It’s easy to demonize those you don’t know. Kevin made an attempt to understand a culture and perspective that aroused anger and fear in many people he knew. He did so by actually getting to know people, to understand their hearts and motivation.
Maybe you could benefit from doing the same. Hopefully you would at least learn to shed the stereotypical name-calling.
— Lisa
April 13, 2009, 1:58 pm
Lisa,
I do get it. I get the respect for the students at Liberty, I get the respect for the honesty of their beliefs, I get the respect for their struggle to live like normal young men and women in a very demanding environment and I do get the respect for their motivation to do good. BUT - all this aside, what does puzzle me is a respect for the institution itself which objectively exists in order to indoctrinate, to teach scientific falsehoods and ideas that are truly immoral at their core. That is hard for me to accept.
— Chris
April 14, 2009, 12:27 am
A think a clarification is in order - perhaps this is a matter of semantics but to me, respect must be earned, it is not an entitlement and unlike tolerance the standard, at least in my mind, is much much higher. I could personally never have respect for ideas or ideologies that have been proven wrong and dangerous and by extension, I could not imagine having respect for an establishment that spreads them.
Now, that being said, this book was illuminating, entertaining and thought provoking and made me feel a little bit more optimistic about the future….
— Chris
April 14, 2009, 12:39 am
Chris,
What I find interesting is the intolerance you demonstrate toward views that are opposed to your own. You claim to know that evolution is true & resort to name calling with words like “dangerous” & “immoral”. Nobody is calling you immoral for your blind acceptance of the Darwinian faith… naïve maybe, but not immoral.
Now who is the one being indoctrinated here? Which school actually teaches multiple theories on the origins of life? Is it Brown? What about Harvard or Yale? No, not them. The answer is Liberty University.
Schools like Brown & Yale will deny the existence of absolute truth while at the same time insisting beyond all reason on the absolute veracity of Darwinian evolution! This glaring institutional contradiction actually makes me laugh out loud. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
Yet, the school that actually teaches ALL of the various ideas on origin is roundly criticized for not toeing the Darwinian line. This attempt at silencing alternative viewpoints & thought is the thing that is truly dangerous & immoral.
Perhaps you should expand your reading list beyond your faculty-approved textbook… you may just learn that the THEORY of Darwinian evolution has serious flaws that should be studied & investigated, not concealed & indoctrinated.
— Tyrone
April 14, 2009, 7:11 am
Chris,
I was not referring to your comment that young-earth creationism is “pseudoscientific garbage” (for the record, I personally am not a young-earth creationist, but an old-earth creationist that believes the scientific record supports at least a certain amount of evolution).
I was referring to the “hateful ideology” comment. That comment was not in reference to teaching young-earth creationism, was it? I’m pretty sure it was a reference to something else. Am I right?
And can you explain to us what you believe is being taught at Liberty that is “immoral to the core”?
— Lisa
April 14, 2009, 11:23 am
This is straightaway embarrassing. Unfortunately, though, treating adults like children seems to be a common theme in evangelical circles.
— Liberty Freelance
April 16, 2009, 8:35 pm
Tyrone,
I can tolerate your views - I just have no respect for them because they contradict reality. If you are so proud that liberty for teaching “multiple origin theories” then why not write to the academic office (a misnomer if I ever saw one) and ask them to do the same in all other sciences and start teaching astrology as an alternative view to astronomy; alchemy as an alternative view for chemistry and, while at it, why not the Stork Theory of Reproduction to sex theory in biology class?
— Chris
April 16, 2009, 11:32 pm
Lisa,
I do find it immoral to teach scientific falsehoods to gullible young adults and therefore deprive them of the knowledge and the skills they will need to function in the real world.
I do find it immoral to scare little children with horrible stories of hell, damnation and eternal torture, which can be even more damaging to the psychological development of that child than than physical child abuse.
I do find it immoral to tell a perfectly healthy teenager that masturbating or being gay is a sin and to try to suppress a person’s most natural and healthy sexual urges and emotional desires - it was funny in the book but it is no laughing matter. Thousands of teenagers commit suicide every year precisely because of such attitude. And the excuse that it is all done with good intentions and love is no excuse at all.
I can go on but will stop here because I really do not want to hijack this forum for a theological debate, it is not the place for that.
— Chris
April 16, 2009, 11:43 pm
I had a feeling it would come down to what it did come down to, Chris.
I may be perceiving this wrong but it seems like the evolution-creationism thing is a convenient log to throw on the considerable fire you had already built up over other topics.
Seems like there is a lot of anger there, Chris. And usually behind anger there is pain.
I hope that someday you can experience the kind of lessons that Kevin learned experiencing the events he depicted in the book. Before you could, you might need to make a personal choice to leave some of that anger behind, though. Too often the one we are hurting the most by nurturing anger is ourselves.
— Lisa
April 17, 2009, 7:24 pm
Lisa,
You are confusing anger with indignation. It may be hard to imagine but it is possible not to believe the universe was created with you in mind and to be happy at the same time.
— Chris
April 18, 2009, 12:14 am
I posted about the disclaimer.
http://libertyfreelance.blogspot.com/2009/04/fire-unlikely-disciples-babysitter.html
— Liberty Freelance
April 18, 2009, 9:08 am
[...] readers of this blog will be familiar with my Liberty bookstore saga, detailed here and again here. For those of you who are just getting here, the story in a [...]
— Kevin Roose: The Blog » Blog Archive » The Liberty Situation, part 3
April 27, 2009, 12:53 am
Kevin,
First, let me say that I have thoroughly enjoyed the book, and as both an evangelical pastor and professor, it’s both refreshing and enlightening to see a fair treatment from an outsiders point of view.
On the two specific points of the post:
On #1, the key word that is seemingly missed in Falwell’s quote is “most.” In the quote you provided, Falwell does not claim that people do not have legitimate physical needs, nor that those needs be met, but that in the grand scheme of things, those needs pale in comparison to their spiritual need. What they need most is the word of God. Nor does this statement of spiritual priority suggest that Christians ought to ignore physical needs for the sake of meeting spiritual ones. On the contrary, Christians are accountable to meet both kinds of need. Such statements as the one you quote are generally used to remind Christians that meeting physical needs is not enough. We must continue on to meet the most important need of sharing the message of Jesus Christ.
On #2, might I suggest that neither you nor the administrators are completely right here. I don’t believe you “perpetuate the myth” in the book, but neither does the phrase “may not have been entirely his” dispel it. At best, you have called the myth into question but still leave Falwell culpable. Take that for what it’s worth
On the disclaimer itself, it seems reasonable to me that the administration would mention the two items, as well as a “heads up” on the sexual references. Nevertheless, I personally don’t find that these instances call your credibility into question. What ethnography has ever been written that has been precisely right in all its interpretations? In my opinion, you have done a refreshingly good job of offering a fair treatment of our evangelical sub-culture. If anything, those parts I find bothersome will cause me to reflect on the good the bad and the ugly in evangelical life and work to be ever more Christ-like in all we do.
Blessings,
Todd B.
— Todd B.
April 27, 2009, 7:06 am
After reading this I will add to those others saying his comments what the third world needs was taken out of context. When I read the disclaimer it sounded like a crazy thing to say, but when I listened to actual audio clip it was very obvious that what he meant was much less of a sensational statement than made out to be. From my experience as a former Christian I can tell you it’s a very common POV to think the Gospel is the #1 need in the world. After all, that is what “they” are here for - to spread His word.
— Jason Skinner
April 27, 2009, 10:04 am
I’m in no way a Falwell defender but I know enough about Evangelical views about world hunger and other problems to explain what was probably obvious to Falwell’s audience: Falwell (and many other Evangelicals) believed that the love and justice of the Gospel message would create a world where hunger would immediately be addressed by that love. So it is similar to saying that teaching a man to fish is more important than giving that man a fish to eat TODAY. The latter addresses today’s hunger, a symptom of a problem. The former addresses today’s hunger (by a message that includes a meal) and tomorrow’s as well. It solves the problem rather than just a symptom. I’m positive that that is what Falwell meant about taking the Gosepl to the world and thereby addressing problems like poverty — and I had heard him say as much in other sermons. So I seriously doubt his views had changed in the sermon cited such that he somehow thought that ONLY the Gospel message (without the ACCOMPANYING implications of the Gospel that include addressing hunger and social justice) could be taken to the needy of the world.
That said, I appreciated the attitude of the book and also the honesty and respect shown by the author in the aftermath.
— Al Miller
May 19, 2009, 12:02 pm
[...] you put a disclaimer in Kevin Roose book. Now this Liberty University Bans Democrat [...]
— Dear Liberty University, « claire.she.goes.
May 24, 2009, 9:46 am
I read your book. Thank you for writing it. Reading the comments here has been somewhat entertaining for me. Although, reading John’s comment about you being on your way to “yellow journalism” or some such nonsense is absurd to me.
Clearly, you wrote the book from the best of intentions and humanized people who would apparently not consider themselves to be human. If your agenda was to bridge cultural divides, then you have done a great job.
After reading the book, I can say that the focus on these two specific points in the book is almost ludicrous. There’s really no need to defend yourself if someone can’t read your book and understand it as a cohesive whole, instead choosing to nitpick about one or two sentences. You were there when Jerry Falwell said what he said. It does not mean that the single quote sums up everything that Jerry was or what he meant by what he said. It was a simple statement that should be taken within the entire context of his complex public life.
— Stephen
June 24, 2009, 12:01 pm
Sounds like Liberty is more concerned that this might cause some students to change their mind on coming to Liberty which would effect their goal of increasing at a massive rate. It shouldn’t be that surprising as well that Liberty’s Chancellor and others would respond this way as most Christians want to convey who they are through their outward appearance and are too afraid to admit who they really are on the inside or what they may struggle with.
I can’t wait to pick up my copy and I applaud you for undertaking this project
— Aaron
September 5, 2009, 4:25 am
I recently finished your book and I really enjoyed it. When I started reading it, I expected it to be completely one-sided. Secretly I was hoping you’d be really mean. I’m not sure why people are complaining about it. I was raised in an evangelical church since I was ten and all I can say is that they’re lucky I wasn’t the one writing a book about LU or evangelicals. I’d give them something to really complain about. Let’s just say that after all the years I was forced into a religion I didn’t understand or believe in by my family, I rather get a tooth pulled than sit through one more sermon.
I think you were beyond respectful and fair throughout the entire book. Especially considering everything you encountered. In fact, reading your book made me a little more sympathetic toward evangelicals. The thing is as crazy as they sometimes seem, they really believe that they’re 100% right. They feel that if they stray they will go to hell and suffer for all eternity. Not that you’re calling them crazy. I felt I should clarify that.
I’m really looking forward to your next book.
— Liz
April 14, 2010, 12:41 am
Hey Kevin.. I am about to transfer to Liberty to University for close to the same reason.. Last week a friend gave me your book. I am reading it now. So it looks like you beat me to the idea. Anyway I hope the experience goes well for me.
— Alex Bryant
June 28, 2010, 12:27 am
Kevin, I loved the book! I was very happy to see that the forgiveness you received from the Liberty students was surprising to you. Although Christians are human and make many mistakes, the love that many Christians have given to me on numerous occasions has surprised me as well. I do believe that is supernatural and no college course, even at Liberty, can compare to seeing God at work first hand through his people. I hope in the future, when you think about your doubts about God, you will remember the Bible truth “they will know we are Christians by of our love of each other”
— wayne
July 7, 2010, 7:57 pm
Kevin, I’ll keep out of the Chris ‘n’ Lisa show (above) to say, just finished reading the book. I’m evangelical and thought it was great. Anyone reading the actual book – not second-hand reports – knows that you bent over backwards to be fair. If anything I think you possess an extraordinarily sensitive conscience. Great for a journalist. Blessings.
PS - I wonder about all the sex talk at LU. I attended Bible College 30 years ago, and going on about sex or refering to a woman in a sexual way would have brought down a “hey guys, c’mon” reprimand from one’s dormmates. At least that seemed to be my experience. I hope this isn’t a trend in Christian colleges. What’s the righteousness of refraining from sex if the men are going to objectify the women?
PPS - would love to see a woman go to LU and see what she came away with, I bet it would be an eye-opener.
— Gary
October 2, 2010, 6:59 pm
[...] it comes with a long disclaimer (emphases mine): Readers of the Unlikely Disciple should be aware that many factual inaccuracies [...]
— Even After His Death, Jerry Falwell Causes Trouble | Friendly Atheist
July 11, 2011, 8:38 pm