Jerry Falwell
If you haven't heard by now, Jerry Falwell died today. I'm sure there'll be reams said about him in the next few days, but I wanted to quote some observations from Salon.com. One doesn't expect Salon.com to be a big fan of Jerry Falwell, and they aren't. But their writer does make some points worth pondering.
To the religious life of the United States [Falwell] made no significant contribution. But to the political life of the country, he made one: He founded the Moral Majority. In so doing, Falwell managed to take something holy -- one does not have to be a Christian to admire the life and teachings of Jesus Christ -- and turned it into something partisan and divisive.
Evangelicalism grew in the exurban megachurches, and the megachurches, implicitly and occasionally explicitly, rejected Falwell's approach to the faith. Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Bill Hybels -- these inclusive preachers inherited the mantle of Billy Graham, not Falwell and his great rival Pat Robertson.
Falwell's theology, such as it was, never made clear how America could be both the promised land and Gomorrah at the same time.
To the religious life of the United States [Falwell] made no significant contribution. But to the political life of the country, he made one: He founded the Moral Majority. In so doing, Falwell managed to take something holy -- one does not have to be a Christian to admire the life and teachings of Jesus Christ -- and turned it into something partisan and divisive.
Evangelicalism grew in the exurban megachurches, and the megachurches, implicitly and occasionally explicitly, rejected Falwell's approach to the faith. Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Bill Hybels -- these inclusive preachers inherited the mantle of Billy Graham, not Falwell and his great rival Pat Robertson.
Falwell's theology, such as it was, never made clear how America could be both the promised land and Gomorrah at the same time.
posted by juvenal_urbino | 5:02 PM
7 Comments:
What a legacy to leave. It is sad that someone can say that a preacher made a bigger contribution to politics than to religious life. And I guess the point of this snippit is that Falwell wouldn't see the two as separate.
As for Falwell's theology of Promised Land vs. Gommorah -- I understand what this writer is getting at, but this isn't that uncommon of a preacher's tool (or literary tool): The Jeremiad. So, not that it matters, but Falwell has some precedence for this. You preach about the glorious past, the dark present because of the sin, and the glorious future after people change their ways.
I think the thing that stands out in my mind about Falwell is the infamous comments he made after 9/11. What he said was completely inappropriate, not to mention the product of reductive, mystical thinking. I don't go out of my way to speak ill of those who have passed on, but sometimes do feel the need to acknowledge that some folks' presence on this earth caused more harm than good. I would put Falwell in that category.
Yeah, the illogic of Falwell's (and Robertson's) punishment-from-God declarations always amazed me.
If an earthquake hit California or a hurricane hit New Orleans or, as you point out, terrorists attacked New York, they were Johnny-on-the-spot with, "This is God's punishment for all the sin being committed in _______."
But when wildfires destroyed half of West Texas or tornados killed a dozen people in Oklahoma and Kansas, an Egyptian prison guard couldn't have gotten them to talk.
The things I thought particularly interesting in the snippets were:
a) the notion that Christian Conservatives have been trying to overcome their association with Falwell (rather than relishing the association), and
b) that the megachurch gurus are the heirs to Billy Graham, because
c) they consciously turned away from the Falwell/Robertson model.
Do b and c ring true? I haven't really followed megachurchism, so I don't know. The comparison to Graham had never occurred to me.
From what I've read, it seems that Osteen and Warren don't really have a lot in common, other than the big church thing.
I can see how they'd relate more to Graham, as he seemed much more concerned with people and inclusion rather than politics and pointing out how everyone doesn't belong in church.
But just like the last topic, I feel comfortable saying lots of stuff about this because I really don't know too much about it.
The wording is confusing, but I took it to say that Warren/Osteen/Hybels inherited Graham's stage, not "because" they rejected Falwell/Robertson; in fact, I don't read it to say "why" they inherited that leadership role - just that they did "instead of" Falwell and his type
Also, your "c" rings true to me just because the author used the term "implicitly." Definitely no subscription to Falwell's tactics by the Warrens or Hybels or Osteens of the world.
The writer did leave that kinda fuzzy. I'm still not sure whether he meant to say that Warren, etc., had inherited Graham's mantle rather than Falwell & Robertson's mantle; or that Warren, etc., had inherited Graham's mantle rather than Falwell & Robertson inheriting Graham's mantle. (What is a mantle, anyway, and is there a "death tax" imposed when one inherits one? Is it anything like a surplice? Are we even sure Graham owned one? Maybe he rented.)
Anyway, I thought the writer intended the first meaning, but like I said, I'm still not sure.
Good point on Osteen, Mikey. From what little I know about him, it seems like he inherited the mantle of Norman Vincent Peale, not Billy Graham.
[Hee-hee.]
Post a Comment
<< Home