I entered reading Kevin Roose’s book with great enthusiasm. Having just sold back a few of my college textbooks to the new Liberty University books store, I was making a quick scan of the merchandise and stumbled upon Roose’s book. The cover features a glossed over photo of the undistinguishable Roose holding out a copy with the spine reading “The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner’s Semester at America’s Holiest University.”
My initial predictions of Roose’s story were far from accurate. I expected to find the archetypal story of an evangelical walk-in convert — something I really had no interest in. The fact is, a Liberty student is as likely to stumble upon a story like that as a fish is likely to stumble upon water. Luckily, I was curious enough to read the quotes on the back of the book; reading those quotes provoked me to read the first few pages, and the first few pages provoked me to read the first chapter.
What I discovered was not the archetypal evangelical walk-in convert story. “The Unlikely Disciple” is the story of a journalism student from the ultra liberal Brown University who went undercover to get a taste of what real religious conservatism was like. Kevin Roose, a liberal raised by leftist Quakers, spent an entire semester incognito at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University (my school), chronicling all his observations, thoughts and experiences. If you don’t know anything about my school, it’s pretty much the exact opposite of Brown. Besides the fact that Liberty University is about as politically incorrect as a modern American institution can be, its students stand on complete opposite sides of the spectrum from Brown on issues like gay marriage, prayer in schools and abortion.
Overall the book was very well written. Roose makes common use of pronouns and quotations to establish credibility, and threads his pages full of clever witticisms and metaphors. My only complaint relating to the quality of his work is his constant transitions from the infinitive to past tense and vice versa (‘I walk to Demoss Hall’ instead of ‘I walked to Demoss Hall’). Why not keep the whole thing in past tense? I am sure it’s just another writing style, but it’s not a very good one in my opinion.
The book is full of private student conversations, “unverifiable statements” (as the Liberty disclaimer puts it) that Roose claims to have been “re-arranged” to fit the context. Many of the conversations struck me as unlikely and some were almost too horrendous to seem possible.
Examples of these are resident students arguing about interracial dating, and Roose’s roommate becoming strangely obsessed with promoting obscene violence towards homosexuals.
“Guys, if you hear about any, you know, homosexuality in the dorm, let me know. I don’t want anyone to get a crush on me, you know?”
I chuckle. Henry does not. He slams his pen down on his desk and looks first at me, then at Eric.
“Don’t even talk like that,” he barks. “I hate faggots. If something like that happened to me, I would do something about it. I would snap somebody’s neck.”
“I don’t want to hear any more,” says Henry. “I’m telling you, if a queer touched me, I would do what Sampson did to the Philistines. Or what David did to Goliath. I would beat him with a baseball bat.”
…I came to my room to find my roomate Henry pacing the floor, raging mad. “I cannot take all the faggots around here,” he says. “It’s worse than San Francisco in this dorm. These guys aren’t even good Christians. Bunch of qeers.”
Roose elaborates on a theory that Jerry Falwell was a racist or at one point was. He talks about how Liberty Christian Academy (Liberty’s feeder highschool) was coincidentally established near the time after the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision. The Brown v. Board case provided for the de-segregation of all public schools. But even though LCA was a private school (and therefore couldn’t be affected by the ruling), Roose still implicates some sort of connection.
Dr. Falwell denies and link, but Lynchburg Christian Academy was founded along with a wave of “seg academies” that swept the South in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and in 1966, the Lynchburg News called Lynchburg Christian Academy “a private school for white students.
But even if you could find a connection, the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision was in 1962 and the founding of LCA was not till 10 years later … I guess that would call all schools founded in that time frame under suspicion. At that point you’re probably looking at about 40% of American education institutions.
Roose also talks about Dr. Falwell’s opposition to desegregation, the Civil Rights Act and Martin Luther King Jr. Yet he leaves out key historical facts. For one, Martin Luther King Jr. was an evangelical Christian by today’s definition. His major premise was that God created men equally and that all men were to be treated equally — a principle found only in scripture. Desegregation was a movement propelled primarily by the Church; the warped opinion that liberalism (or a liberal approach to scripture and our nation’s founding principles) propelled desegregation is nothing but a lie.
Because of this, Liberty creates an environment where racism and other social injustices are smothered – not cradled. I can’t see how Roose can make a point by delivering unverifiable statements that could have been made by racially oppressed college students just about anywhere else on the planet. Take this example Roose quotes from a black dorm mate:
“Since, I’ve been here, I can’t stop worrying about what people think of me because I’m black. I walk around campus all nervous — it’s all I think about. Girls put their heads down when they pass me. And my football coach in high school told me to say hi and smile at everyone. So I try. But it’s hard, man.”
I imagine racial oppression is still something that takes place in places like Brown University. So what’s the big idea? Providing that this statement is credible, what point is Roose trying to get across? That Liberty is a breeding ground for racial discrimination, and other schools are inculpable?
Although these things are easily deducible, the passive reader may be inclined to absorb them without asking the right questions. Manipulative journalism if you ask me.
I don’t mean to question Roose’s credibility; but at my two years at Liberty, I have honestly never come across a pint of the ignorant filth Roose witnessed in a single semester.
“But if you look at how God initiated judgment on these people, well, in the ideal society, which is Christ’s society, they [the homosexuals] would be eliminated from the earth.”
I took in most of Roose’s quotations as tentative truths, up until I read the account of a loosely acquainted Liberty girl who confessed intimate details about her private sex life to Roose. A Liberty girl talking about her sexual affairs … to a male Liberty student? That’s about as likely as a three-year-old solving differential equations. Any Liberty student with half the social skills of a coconut would question Roose’s veracity.
I don’t mean to say that such things like racial discrimination and violence towards gays could not have taken place, but I would point out that such things are less deterred and more prevalent in secular universities who don’t have rules like Liberty’s $250 fine for “racially insensitive comments,” and secular universities that don’t have a worldview that teaches equality of all men given from a divine authority. Objectively, you are more likely to come across that type of behavior in secular institutions — and that’s an Implicit, yet sociologically blatant fact.
Of all of the statements I came across in Roose’s book, one of them stands out the most. I practically fell off my chair when I read this:
Another worrisome statement came during a guest lecture in my Evangelism 101 class by one of Liberty’s campus pastors. At the end of the lecture, the pastor addressed the two hundred-plus students in my class this way: ‘I just want to say this, Liberty students. My biggest worry about you, about all of you, is that you’ll become educated beyond your obedience.”
Of course, surrounding the context, Roose leaves out vital information, like the pastor’s name for example. Anonymous statements like these should not be taken as gospel. Could the statement be part of a joke that only rings with the content of what the pastor previously said? It’s a likely possibility.
But I can tell you, with confidence, that if a campus pastor where to say such a thing in front of my face the LUPD would have something like a small skirmish on their hands. I have never encountered such crude logic from Liberty administrators, and judging from past experience — I doubt I ever will. Roose’s assertion that Liberty believes education to be “an enemy of the faith,” (pg. 249), is a deceptive one to say the least.
Roose also perpetuates that students at Liberty University commonly use words like “gay,” “homo,” and “queer,” as common derogatory remarks … I don’t know what country you’ve been living in Roose, but people have lightly thrown terms like those around for decades. I passed this book along to my brother (he is about ¾ through it right now), and, as a student of Suny New Paltz (does the name Jason West ring a bell?), he can confirm that words like “gay,” “homo,” and “queer,” are more than routinely exchanged in secular institutions alike. So I can’t see how Roose could be completely mortified to hear them spoken at Liberty, and I certainly can’t see how Roose made the conclusion that Liberty’s gay lingo usage is overly frequent.
…Liberty is home to more homophobic language than your average college. And so far, the way I’ve been dealing with the intolerance is by lying to myself.
Another difficulty I have with the Roose’s interpretation is his insistence on “Bible Boot Camp” imagery. I don’t think I have ever heard the words “Bible,”Boot,” and “Camp,” in the same sentence during my 2-year attendance at Liberty University. Most of us don’t even use the word “evangelical,” neither in the classroom or when we are describing ourselves. Roose makes it sound like Liberty is some kind of spiritual military academy where young Christians conspire to eradicate abortionists and homosexuals.
Yes, we believe that our views are the correct views (doesn’t everybody?), but we don’t force people into believing anything. Do we believe in spiritual warfare? Certainly, but it’s not exactly Montagues vs. Capulets; most of us have members in our own families that share opposing worldviews. The majority of Liberty students are from public schools, which means they have seen, firsthand, the world of Kevin Roose — secular academia. So this idea that Liberty students live in an isolated, sociological bubble is completely blown out of proportion. Granted, Roose doesn’t actually say that Liberty students live in a bubble — but he certainly implies it.
Roose’s work is full of subtle implications and elusive connotations he uses to support his biases. To the non-critical reader, this might not seem evident. But by mortifying the worst of us (characters like his roommate Henry), and humanizing the hypocrites (characters like “Jersey Joe” and his roommates), he makes it seem like the rest of us are a big joke. He emphasizes our current human leaders, like Jerry Falwell and the campus pastures, and says little about our one indefinite leader, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is our absolute leader — not Jerry Falwell, even Jerry Falwell would attest to that. Try finding a flaw with Jesus Christ — and then you have an argument.
Not only does Roose overlook the core teachings of Jesus Christ, but he also neglects to properly examine the centerpiece of evangelical ideology — the Bible. Sure, Roose quotes pinches of scripture here and there to get his points across, but he never really goes too far in-depth. Roose is much more comfortable making points by critiquing GNED, evangelism or Bible class course material.
I understand the book probably wouldn’t seem as investigative had he focused more on the Bible than on course material. After all, the book was specifically written about Liberty — not the Bible or even Christianity for that matter. But can you really separate the two? Where do Liberty students get their worldviews from, the Bible or GNED? Roose’s evaluations were crooked from the get-go. You can’t study a people group or religion without having a thorough knowledge of its doctrinal background. And you certainly do it an injustice when you make assessments without that understanding. From what he tells us, Roose was as biblically literate as a lima bean when he first walked into Liberty University.
Roose makes himself out to be some sort of a hero by not bashing Christianity and taking an even-handed, journalistic approach. But I can’t help to ask: what if Roose were to have written a ‘Christian basher’? I imagine he would be facing a variety of law suits right now. So really I have no admiration for his approach, which I optimistically describe as painstakingly tactful. In fact, I would argue that the subtle attacks Roose makes have potential to be more devastating than frontal assaults on Christianity like “God is not Great” by Christopher Hitchens and “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins. At least Hitchens and Dawkins don’t fit themselves into the Christian religion by ignoring correct biblical doctrine. At the end of the book and in his interviews Roose calls himself a Christian, yet doesn’t believe in the resurrection or virgin birth? To the modern secular mind that might not seem like such a far reach, but to the Biblically indoctrinated It just doesn’t add up.
Roose’s internal conflicts were apparent throughout his book. I imagine living in a place so permeated with the gospel had a near proselytizing effect on him. But at the same time, I imagine living in an environment like Brown University — so permeated with other gospels — could have a near proselytizing effect on me as well.
On that note, Roose identifies all of the despicable human behavior that takes place at Liberty, but says little or nothing about what he may have witnessed at Brown. Idiotic rules like curfew, complete alcohol abolition, and strict no-touch dating might seem a little controlling or over the edge. But what really is so praiseworthy about the contrary — which is an embrace of these things, the typical notion that college is “a time in every young person’s life when work takes a back seat to fun, when nothing is off limits and parents aren’t around to pick up the mess,” as Roose said in his book trailer. Sure illicit sex, drug abuse, profuse partying and drinking might be items on the list of life’s precious joys, but what happens when all the booz runs dry, and the bill rings up? Who pays for those bills anyway and what real freedom does booz allow us? I refuse to look at the indulgent life style as something praiseworthy — as movies and television often do.
Instead I think that students at Liberty University do something praiseworthy by practicing self-conservation, chastity and drug abstinence by means of a constrained and disciplined lifestyle. Of course people would argue that it ain’t all that bad over at upper-class American academia. But let’s be frank. Text books and course catalogs aren’t the only things college kids have their noses in these days. The typical college lifestyle is explosively different from the typical American working-class lifestyle. Liberty students just sit at opposite sides of the table — perhaps the right side of the table — but to people like Roose, the right side will always be an issue of subjectivity. Whatever floats your boat jack.
It’s too bad people like Roose, who have great intellectual vigor, are unable to see true Christians as little more than brainwashed prudes. I do respect Roose as a peace hungerer, and I see him as a very relatable guy. Some of the things he wrote about Liberty’s atmosphere were infinitely true, and really hit home for me specifically. Example:
I’m not optimistic about my wooing skills. Most of the Liberty girls I’ve met seem to like macho, ultra-conservative guys who watch The O’Reilley Factor and bench-press hundreds of pounds in their spare time, not English major milquetoasts who drink mango smoothies and listen to the latest Michael Buble album. For now, singledom seems to be my only option.
It was an interesting to read the account of someone who had practically tread my own path (or somewhere near it) for a time. Kevin Roose spent the Spring 07 semester at Liberty, the semester before I arrived, and had roomed in dorm 22, the dorm right next to mine. He took all Bible/creation/theology classes (something Liberty students never do), but he was a journalism student at heart and he did write for the Champion (as I did).
But, like I stated, he simply sits at the opposite side of the table, and I doubt he will ever acknowledge the gravity of a singular, undisputable truth. Whether or not he has witnessed hypocrisy or shakable faith — those things are beside truth, and in contradiction to omniety — not a part of it.
Granted, the image of truth has many times been distorted by careless wielders of the truth. Truth is — truth is like a sword. Do people sometimes wield that sword unwittingly and even cut their own selves with that blade? Yes. But if you examine the sword alone and indiscriminately, you will find it to be without blemish — the finest in the land — and you will also find the maker of that sword to be without blemish. That sword is quite capable of breaking even the most subtle biases, so be warned Kevin Roose.
In hindsight, I am glad that I stumbled upon “The Unlikely Disciple”. It truly gave me a better understanding of where America’s current young academic elites stand, and the humor alone was enough to make it a compelling read. I still find the title, “The Unlikely Disciple”, unfitting; In the end Roose’s views didn’t really change at all. He may have gained knowledge or re-ordered his personal feelings after leaving Liberty University, but the essence of his worldview remained unchanged. In the words of Jesus Christ:
“So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.” Luke 14:33.
I am not a religious person, but am always searching for ways that people, including myself, can learn to live together and understand each other better, as we must, given we are all on this ride together. I found this book enlightening and fresh. I feel as if I understand devout Christians better now. Anger and hate are born from fear and the unknown.
Dorie
Good review,
I completely agree with many of your thoughts.
Kevin does deserve some credit for admitting his own pre-concieved notions about the Liberty student body was a result of his own misgivings based on stereotypes.
On the negative side, one part that stood out for me was near the end. After hearing of Falwel’s passing many of his friends celebrated and he said something like “I know I should be happy about it” (paraphrasing here) Really? What happened to being more open minded and caring than us hateful Evangelicals?
I actually emailed Roose, (not too long after writing this) expressing the points laid out in this post. His response? Instead of disputing any of the facts, he resorted to misusing scripture, and said he would “turn the other cheek” instead of arguing with me. Of course this only re-enforced my opinion of his true attitude towards Liberty students — that they are inane followers of an ‘old-fashioned’, senseless religion.
Last week I visited his blog and saw in his Twitter updates something like “Got a Biology exam tomorrow … maybe I’ll just pull a ‘Liberty’ and write ‘GOD DID IT’ for all the answers.” I think that’s the last time I will be visiting his blog.
Anyway, I have been curious for the opinions of Liberty staff who read it. Deborah Huff, who is the supervisor of the student paper which Roose wrote for, actually brought it up in class. She got very upset when the subject came up, and I could see on her face that she probably saw some of the same things I saw. Unfortunately she did not want to elaborate. She said “don’t get me started on Kevin Roose,” and went on with the course material.
I guess there’s only one thing you can do when someone writes something overtly slanderous like “The Unlikely Disciple.” Turn the other cheek. And that’s not a misuse of scripture.
hey…Terrific , balanced, insightful review. I am reading the Roose book, and enjoying it, but now I am more mindful of the passive reader problem (it’s easy to buy into selective distortiions). I found his getting so upset about the gay language to be contrived; as you say, words sort of like that are often heard. I’m a Christian (well, Episcopalian), middle-aged, gay, Republican…and I can’t stand the xtian right but I respect the good-heartedness of many evangelicals.
Very interesting review. I went to a much smaller evangelical university in Tennessee, so I related to a lot of the things that he saw happening. I did have to question at times why things bothered him in one way, or whether they were as accurate as he claimed.
The whole using homosexual terms thing puzzled me, as I know that I hear those quite often outside of Christian circles.
Likewise, the Falwell’s death comment made me shudder…not rejoicing but not exactly distraught…yet, when Virginia Tech students are murdered (which was just as bad) he was speechless and emotionally hurt – especially at the comments coming from Christians?
I mean, I enjoyed the book. I read it quickly. As a pastor, it hit home with me in some of the ways that non-Christians view the evangelical community – but in some ways it reaffirmed the fact that, as Francis Chan has said in a matter of words – “Your life shouldn’t make sense to unbelievers…”
It was a good read, but I appreciate your views of how life really is on campus – which seems to be how it was for me when I was in college not too long ago. Facts are facts – but creating facts for stories is never a cool thing to do.
[...] book doesn’t come without some discussion. I found a blog post of an actual Liberty student here who calls some of the stuff into question…read it for yourself. I could see his [...]
[...] book doesn’t come without some discussion. I found a blog post of an actual Liberty student here who calls some of the stuff into question…read it for yourself. I could see his [...]
I finished the book. Overall, I think its very well written, surprising, funny, thoughtful, and respectful. The most disconcerting thing about the book is the deception — continued pretending to be more sincerely interested in prayer than he really was — and it surprises me that you the blogger here didn’t make more of that.
Chris,
This is an interesting and well-written review. I’m a Liberty alum, and I wanted to point out a few things to you:
1. I heard more outrageous statements from some Liberty students about homosexuals than Roose recounted. Much, much worse. They were certainly not the norm, as you’re correct to point out, but it’s far from unfathomable that Roose heard what he claims to have heard.
2. Some liberty girls talk to some liberty guys about their sex lives. In a school of 10,000, it’s just a simple fact.
3. Your referring to Liberty rules as “idiotic” is more damning than anything Roose ever said.
4. “Bible boot camp” is Jerry Falwell’s phrase for Liberty. He used it many times when I was there.
5. My Evangelism 101 teacher, Pastor Johnnie Moore, either directly said “my hope is that you won’t become educated beyond your obedience”, or something very similar to that. It wasn’t anything controversial or nefarious; he simply meant that it is important to trust God more than ourselves (my conclusion of what he meant, anyway), and that if we put too much faith in our own intellect, we’ll miss out on God’s plan for our lives. I think it was a perfectly reasonable statement, and I’m often a Liberty critic.
Tim,
1. I can’t call you a liar but I can offer testimony that is contrary to yours. I have never heard students exhibit animosity towards gays at the level Roose wrote about. It simply doesn’t happen at the Liberty I go to. We don’t hate gays and are taught not to. We have ex-gay speakers talk about homosexuality and even the RAs offer counseling for homosexuality. We have a (virtually militant) gay organization that comes on campus every year and talks to students about why they think homosexuality is not a sin. We don’t agree with that of course but we allow for debate. It would be extremely outlandish if someone were to rant about killing gays like what happened in the book with Roose’s roomate. I am not saying that such a thing could not happen in a school of 10,000 people, I am just saying it would not be normal. It would be against the current not flowing with it.
Ask yourself this: Could you find the same negative behavior or — dare I say — more at secular schools? That is the question that really should be addressed. I am of the impression that Liberty students are pressed with higher moral standards than most student bodies. Tell me if I am wrong. And If there is a student body which operates with higher moral standards, then tell me, by what standard do they do so? They must have a standard if we are going to determine whether they are more moral or not. I would laugh if you came to me with a student body that was Christian because you are only proving my point that Christians are far more moral than secularists. And yet I can’t imagine you coming to me with anything else … Would you say that makes Roose’s point moot?
It is not right to cherry-pick bad experiences with an institution and then write a book that paints the institution in a negative light. I am of the impression that Roose cherry-picked things as well as fabricated things to create content for his book. Why? because I have been here longer than he has (3 years) and I have not experienced the same Liberty that Roose wrote about. That is just my opinion. Some students may read the book and discover that Roose did paint the university in a positive light. Many students I have talked to about the book told me that. I think that many of them are not putting the book into proper perspective and are not looking closely at the implications Roose makes.
Think about it this way — Roose comes up with a plan to attend an evangelical university and write a book about his experiences. Roose is not even out of college and has had no prior work. He knows that the story must be a good one if it is going to be a success or be at least published. Writing something completely positive about Liberty is out of the question because it goes against everything he believes and secular academia teaches. Also, it would not sell. Writing something completely negative is not an option either. He would isolate much of his base (Liberty University) and there are law suites to worry about. It is also likely that a complete basher approach would not sell or be as highly regarded by the publishing world. After all, how many right wing basher books do we have that are written by very prominent people like Al Franken, Maurenn Dowd, Bob Beckel and such? It would not make sense for a student to attempt such a thing. The most viable option then, is to appease both sides and take the middle ground approach. It would certainly be unique in this circumstance. That doesn’t say anything about whether Roose uses fabrications but it gets rid of the idea that Roose is somehow a hero for taking the role of appeaser. It is simply the path to success, so forgive me if I don’t want to give this guy the nobel peace prize.
The reason why I have disdain for the middle ground approach is because it does not reflect his true feelings. His true feelings are evident in the implications he makes (e.g. Jerry is a racist, students hate homosexuals, professors confine reason, etc.).
2. It is also a simple fact that in a school of 10,000, you could find someone with an IQ of 140, near genius. Does that mean that Liberty students are near geniuses or at least a minority? My point is that, using outliers, you can say just about anything about a group of people. Roose has a vast number of outliers (with a group of 10,000) to choose from. I guess my argument is that a scientific approach to determine if Liberty students held more animosity towards gays would be more appropriate. Of course that would never sell.
3. The sentence is: “Idiotic rules like curfew, complete alcohol abolition, and strict no-touch dating might seem a little controlling or over the edge. But what really is so praiseworthy about the contrary — which is an embrace of these things, the typical notion that college is “a time in every young person’s life when work takes a back seat to fun, when nothing is off limits and parents aren’t around to pick up the mess,” as Roose said in his book trailer.” I refer to rules as ‘idiotic’ sarcastically because I refute the idea that they are idiotic in the very next sentence. Sometimes sarcasm doesn’t translate well on paper, which is why we are taught not to use sarcasm unless large portions or the entire piece is a satire. I can see how you misinterpreted that.
4. I came the year after Jerry’s death. It is such a shame because I have come to love the man through his autobiography, other works and the way professors talk of him. Nevertheless, it is likely that I did not hear “Bible Boot Camp” terminology because I went to school when Jerry was not chancellor.
5. Hmm, OK I see what you are saying. The meaning would be that education should not be the highest goal in your life if it is not the highest goal God has for you. But that is not the meaning I came across in Roose’s book. “My hope is that you won’t become educated beyond your obedience,” without any explanation reinforces the stereotype that Christians hate knowledge and reason. That is quite possibly the worst thing you can say about a Christian academic institution.
Admin –
I promise you, I’m not lying about hearing more offensive things than Roose brought up in his book. But since a “promise” on a blog post isn’t worth a whole lot, I’ll do one better.
In the Spring of 2005, there was a student attending liberty named Aaron (I’ll leave his last name out). He had some mental-health issues, and ended up leaving Liberty. But if you asked around, you could find some other graduates who remember him (he was a VERY memorable guy). In GNED 2, he made a comment in class about how “he hates homosexuals so much that he wants to crucify them”. Ask enough graduates, or perhaps some of the GNED profs, and someone else will verify this.
The professor immediately pointed out how inappropriate this was, and not a single other student had anything but opprobrium for his comment. It was certainly an outlier. But the point is that it did happen.
I think you’re missing my point about this; I don’t doubt your sincerity that you have never heard anything outlandish about homosexuals, or girls talking to guys about their sex lives. But it’s not mutually exclusive; your being right doesn’t make my comment wrong. It does tend to make the comments more outliers than the norm – sure – but it’s not unfathomable that Roose heard the things that I heard, and I bet if you took a poll many other LU students heard as well.
That being said, very interesting point about how it was in Roose’s interest to paint Liberty in a somewhat favorable light. I haven’t thought of that before, but you make good arguments. IMO, he really is sincere, but you’re certainly correct that it was to his own advantage to write that way.
And sorry that I missed the sarcasm. I read your post too quickly – reading it again, it’s clear that you’re not calling the rules idiotic.
Tim,
Wow, that was a fast response. I was editing my comment (I have super powers) when you replied. I inserted another paragraph (the second one) which I think you should read if you haven’t.
OK — I see your point. Roose may have very well observed those things because, even at Liberty, there are people with mental problems. But, could you find the same negative behavior or — dare I say — more at secular schools? I think you could. So Roose is making an error by emphasizing those things.
I’m an LU senior, and I have to say I agree with Tim on points 1, 2, 4, and 5.
1.) I’ve heard homosexuals slammed to the floor by students to the point of where I’ve had to stand up and say something because it just went beyond the pale. Sometimes students think that being intolerant of behavior lets them make hateful and derogatory remarks. It happens, and it happens a lot.
2.)I know several of those Liberty girls. Can’t say I’m proud of it, but I do. It makes me wonder what goes on inside their heads… but I definitely overheard one of those conversations in the CLAB just last week.
4.)Bible Bootcamp is absolutely Liberty lingo. I’m surprised you haven’t heard it! Also, the part about the bubble and so forth… ask any LU student and they’ll be the first to tell you that it’s a bubble. It absolutely is. In many ways it’s a good bubble. But even professors etc., joke about that.
5.) Johnnie Moore and Dwayne Carson are always throwing around sayings like that. Yes, it can be taken out of context. Also, if you don’t understand what that means because you weren’t raised in a conservative Christian home, you’re bound to understand it in the wrong way.
Also, in response to your last comment… (just saw it
)
Yes, you can absolutely find that same behavior at those schools. But those schools don’t call themselves “Christ-followers.” That’s the difference. You can expect it from them. I can go to Brown, and I expect to find a party scene on the weekends, but if someone from Brown came to LU, they would call us hypocrites for doing the same. If Roose wrote a book on that, no one would read it because we already know it goes on.
The defensiveness was so pervasive throughout this review that it should not be called a “review” but more a personal reaction.
Point taken. Next time I will disembody myself before writing a book review. Thanks for reading it anyway though.
Chris, thank you for writing this review. I was interested to hear how a LU student would review this book. I think Ashley makes an excellent point that this book could be the product of legitimate quotes that, as Roose in unfamiliar with (as well as rather suspicious of) conservative Christians that these were misconstrued or simply misunderstood without the assumed background that most students enroll with.
I am Catholic with a conservative background. I was homeschooled until college and I was and remain close friends with many non-denominational Christians. I have heard some extreme comments and have questioned some their beliefs concerning suffering and homosexuality. What I have found is that often these beliefs are such emotional subjects because deeply ingrained in some Christians worldview.
Having said that, while I agree that Roose honestly tried to distance himself from his preconceived notions, he is also intrinsically as well as emotionally tied to his own worldview. Yes, he does not pretend that he has been imbued in a liberal worldview from childhood. I feel that Roose could have gone one step further in his research, asking professors and other students for more information to find the foundation for unusual or insulting rhetoric and quotations.
It was interesting to hear about Roose’s aunts who were so concerned about Roose becoming indoctrinated in Christianity. What I found the most intriguing about this book is the sheer amount of prejudice towards conservative Christians.