Fred Sneesby - Observations on Culture, Faith and Politics

Religion, Politics, and Rev. Jerry Falwell

May 25, 2007

The Rev. Jerry Falwell passed on to his eternal reward on May 15 th. Assuming he gets through the pearly gates (something I was trained never to presume), I wonder what reception he’ll get from all the gays up there?

That’s a cheap shot, I know. I have to confess that I know very little about Rev. Jerry Falwell. I am only familiar with the public caricature sketched out by his enemies and devotees for the indifferent (like me). I never listened to any of his speeches. I never read any of his books. I never got too excited one way or the other by the outrageous pronouncements he would make every now and then. I always thought he was a blowhard and found it hard to believe that anyone really listened to him or took him seriously.

A lot of people did take him seriously, though. In the days after his death, as his work and impact have been assessed by those who followed him and those who opposed him, it is generally agreed that he was a principal in creating an identifiable political force (the Moral Majority), in setting the agenda for political debate, in defining what “Christian” meant for the American public, and in drawing the lines of demarcation in the culture wars that are still simmering.

I’ve listened to some interviews he gave over the years and he sounds like a very sincere man. Sincerity or depth of conviction does not guarantee that you are anywhere near the truth, though. Although it does little good to say this now, on most points he was wrong; in spite of that, he won the day.

One of the reasons his Moral Majority carried the day so often was that whatever he was preaching and organizing about resonated with many people across the United States. For people who live on the coasts - for the “blue state” citizens - this may come as a shock, but there’s more people in the United States who think like he did than not. The United States is a big country and if you travel through it you learn that there really is this mass of people who are anchored in what has been termed “traditional values” and who are fairly conservative in their outlook on life and politics. The Rev. Falwell was able to tap into that and use it to his and his sponsors’ purposes.

On a positive note, I think his movement was successful because at root he was saying that there are values, there is good and evil, right and wrong, truth and untruth. Most people believe that, suspect that, or wish it to be true. I believe it, although truth can be elusive and dense, hard to discover and hard to live by.

Negatively, he settled for sloganeering, jingoism, lazy thinking, and scapegoating. In doing that, he missed the mark and set us off in wrong directions. Was he a false prophet? I wouldn’t go that far. Oddly enough, most of the messages he was putting out there were not religious anyway. He was just re-stating conventional moral wisdom, codes of conduct that were part of the culture but that didn’t necessarily have any religious origin or inspiration. This is not unusual. Even in the Letters of St. Paul, there are some summaries of codes of behavior inserted now and then that can also be found in the pagan writings of his day; they were accepted standards of behavior that he endorsed or absorbed into his preaching about what the good life would be like. The Rev. Falwell was able to take some moral standards that were out there in the culture and place them in a religious drama. In doing so, he added the power of religion to some causes. However, at the same time, he may have cast one or another value as “religious” or “godly” when, in fact, it was not. That is a misuse of religion.

The most fascinating thing about him for me, though, is that he was involved in politics at all. His Baptist background does not really provide the theological underpinnings for political activism. In fact, in 1965 he preached against political involvement by preachers in a sermon entitled, “Ministers and Marches.” It was a reaction to the involvement of clergy in the Civil Rights movement, mainly. It wasn’t until the mid-70’s, after Roe v. Wade, increasing illegal drug use, and what was perceived as the breakdown of the family that he turned to political action. Given that metamorphosis, it’s strange that he couldn’t see that what incited him to action had more to do with the culture he grew up in than his faith. Neither did he recognize that there can be development in religious teaching; again, his theology was not mature enough to account for that.

I am glad that he built an alliance between the evangelical churches and the Republican Party. It said very clearly that religion has a legitimate place in politics, that believers belong in the public arena as believers, that their opinions have as much validity as anyone else’s. That being said, religious believers who enter that arena must know that their opinions are not exempt from examination and critique; they must stand the tests of reason and data just like everyone else’s. No one can escape this by claiming God’s authority for their pronouncements.

Even with all his faults, may he rest in peace. And may we all, like him, bring the passion of our beliefs to public life.