Liberty University’s Campus Pastor Defends Falwell Jr.’s Remarks

Liberty U

As we posted yesterday, Jerry Falwell Jr., the president of Liberty University, claims that he is not responsible for the spiritual climate of the nation’s second largest Christian college.

Here is a taste of that post:

Here is a taste of a Washington Times piece on the controversy:

Mr. Falwell deleted the tweet after people complained about its crudeness. He later responded to critics by clarifying that he is not a spiritual leader.

“You’re putting your ignorance on display. I have never been a minister. UVA-trained lawyer and commercial real estate developer for 20 yrs,” he wrote. “Univ president for last 12 years-student body tripled to 100000+/endowment from 0 to $2 billion and $1.6B new construction in those 12 years

“The faculty, students and campus pastor @davidnasser of @LibertyU are the ones who keep LU strong spiritually as the best Christian univ in the world,” he added. “While I am proud to be a conservative Christian, my job is to keep LU successful academically, financially and in athletics.”

Interesting.  It almost seems like Falwell is not interested in the links between Christianity and the academic, financial, and athletic “success” of Liberty University.  It sounds like he is excusing his crude tweet by claiming that he is not a minister and thus not  responsible for the Christian culture of Liberty.  

Nasser recently came to Falwell’s defense on Twitter when a parent wrote this in response to our post:

Nasser responded:

But many Liberty University students and alums are not having it:

And then Nasser seems to subtly attack back (criticizing such “public tweets” against him) under the guise of asking people to pray for him:

It looks like Jerry Falwell Jr., the king of Liberty University, also has his courtiers.

7 thoughts on “Liberty University’s Campus Pastor Defends Falwell Jr.’s Remarks

  1. Tony, please re-read my comment. I never said you said disagreement is wrong. (I know you and John disagree all the time.) In fact, I objected to your specific claim that it was wrong to call Nasser a sycophant. I think the record supports that assertion.

    Super obviously.

    In our conversations, and in the conversations I witness between yourself and others, you seem to have a remarkable ability to toggle between A) sweeping, over-the-top criticism of your critics and B) supercilious umbrage at any criticism of your allies. The reason it’s hard to take you seriously when you act upset over John’s use of ‘sycophant’ language is the way you often become selectively sycophantic in service of your side in the culture wars. It’s like you are unable to see the behaviors in yourself and your allies that you hate to see in others. It’s like you are trying to remove specks of dirt from your brothers’ eyes whilst you have a log jammed into your own.


  2. Justin: you have a tendency to invent arguments others have not made, in order to refute them.

    Please re-read my comment. I never said disagreement is wrong. (John and I disagree all the time.) In fact, I said calling Nasser out for his tweet was fine. I objected to John’s far broader claim that Nasser was a courtier. I don’t think the record supports that assertion.


  3. “you have now characterized him as a Falwell “courtier” based on your disagreement with several tweets. That’s a slender reed upon which to support a sweeping charge of sycophancy”

    Actually it wasn’t based on several tweets alone, it was based also on the boss-employee relationship between the person defending and the person being defended. It’s called context and you shouldn’t ignore it when it simply suits you.

    Wait, are you criticizing a Christian blogger you disagree with for criticizing a Christian tweeter he disagrees with? I guess you CAN ignore context when it suits you.


  4. Nasser makes a public statement in a public forum defending the university president for being publicly critical of a minister….. and then complains about public criticism in response?


  5. John: do you know David Nasser? (I do not.) I ask only because you have now characterized him as a Falwell “courtier” based on your disagreement with several tweets. That’s a slender reed upon which to support a sweeping charge of sycophancy lodged at a fellow Christian. Or is Nasser’s mere affiliation with Liberty enough to warrant your scorn?

    I think Nasser’s original tweet was ill-advised and wrong on the merits; Falwell should not have said what he did. Full stop.

    And Nasser’s follow up snark in response to criticism probably wasn’t his best moment. We all say things — especially in the rough and tumble of quick draw social media — that upon reflection we’d like to have back. Disagreeing with Nasser and calling him out for what he wrote is one thing. Deriding him as a fawning supplicant (again: maybe you have additional facts or interactions with him you didn’t share) is not warranted.


Comments are closed.