In the Agora: On Jerry Falwell

« Is the GOP the Party of Torture? | Main | Lord, to Whom Shall We Go? »

May 18, 2007

On Jerry Falwell

Falwell's influence should have ended there, but just as journalists flock to Al Sharpton for the "black perspective," ignorant journalists consistently propped up Falwell as a token Christian leader.

Like reader Chuck, I think this is the key sentence from Joshua's lovely negative obituary for Rev. Jerry Falwell, who died earlier this week. If I may put a different spin on it, however, I think the piece underplays somewhat how important and influential Falwell really was.

One really has to go back to the mid-20th century to appreciate how much things have changed. Fundamentalists/evangelicals were virtually absent from the public sphere in the decades prior to the 1950s, thanks in part to public chastenings in the early 20th century like the Scopes Trial. Fundamentalists stayed in their corner (as is their want) and evangelicals basically didn't exist as a separate identity until the advent of Billy Graham and Christianity Today (an answer to the liberal Christian Century) in the 1950s and Bill Bright and Campus Crusade in the 1960s. (As an aside, I should say this "conservative counterculture" was unrecognized in the historiography of the 1950s and 1960s for the longest time, and although most history books today now contain an obligatory chapter Campus Crusade and Young Americans for Freedom, it might still be underappreciated). The public face of Christianity was of a liberal, mainline, WASP religion that had no real passion.

This was the Christianity Falwell started his career in and was reacting to, though some might reasonably argue he was always an archconservative politician first and minister second. In the 1960s, he spoke out against ministers marching with Martin Luther King Jr, because he felt it somehow "polluted the message," but by the end of the 1970s, when the women's and gay rights movements had started copying the civil rights movement's tactics, he had changed his tune and was ready to strike back. With the founding of the Moral Majority in 1979, evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, and Rev. Jerry Falwell, were ready to become a potential political force.

And boy did they ever. As much as some today would like to drive evangelicals and fundamentalists out of the conservative movement because of their negative qualities, like Andrew Sullivan's constant and annoying harping on "Christianists," it's nearly impossible to imagine the 2000 and 2004 elections of George W. Bush, the 1994 Republican Revolution, and, perhaps, even the coming of Ronald Reagan, without large swaths of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians going to the polls in support, educated by Moral Majority (later Christian Coalition) voter guides and inspired by ministers preaching on abortion, sexual license, moral decadence, and so on. Sorry libertarians, the American conservative revolution just doesn't happen without Falwell's army of "Jesus Freaks." Indeed, the fact that people are so enraged by the man and his followers is a testament to how powerful they really became.

As for Falwell becoming the public face of conservative Christianity, I share Joshua's lament, but I expect as much from the media. For the media, popularity and/or success makes ones one an expert, whether or not one deserves to be. Fans of Fred "Slacktivist" Clark's long-running series taking down Left Behind for its crimes against good theology and good writing will recognize this truth right away. As the Slacktivist argues, thanks to Left Behind's astonishing success, Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins are now the official voices of Christianity with regards to prophesy, despite the fact that their premillenial dispensationalism is a decided minority position in the world today and throughout Christian history (it basically didn't exist until the 19th century). Like with Jerry Falwell, their popularity has made them spokesmen for Christianity, whether they are good spokesmen or not is unimportant.

Jerry Falwell was a bigot, a demagogue, a Pharisee, and a Christian. As a Lutheran, I found much of his theology in error, to put it mildly. But may God still have mercy on his soul, even if Fred Phelps won't.

Posted by David Darlington at May 18, 2007 01:06 PM

Comments

Fundamentalists/evangelicals were virtually absent from the public sphere in the decades prior to the 1950s

I don't think so. The 1920s, in particular, were a huge period for fundamentalists, from the real (Aimee Semple McPherson), to the fictitious (Elmer Gantry).

Indeed, the term "fundamentalist" was coined in 1920, by Curtis Lee Laws.

It's true that the Scopes trial put the lid on fundamentalist anti-intellectualism, but only for a while. It's back, I'd argue with a vengance, right now. The only difference is that we've substituted Creationism for Monkey as the banner under which to march against Science.

Posted by: Gregory Travis at May 18, 2007 01:26 PM | permalink

Yeah, I was probably too vague there in my reference to "decades." Scopes itself was 1925.

I think some scholars would argue there was a bit of an intermediate period for fundamentalists and evangelicals between Scopes and Billy Graham/Christianty Today (1956?), where political activism and public visibilty was at a very low level. That's what I was referring to.

Posted by: DD at May 18, 2007 01:34 PM | permalink

As for Falwell becoming the public face of conservative Christianity, I share Joshua's lament,

That many evangelical/fundamentalists feel this way comes as a minor shock to me, and I've been around this site for awhile. I'm fairly certain that it would also surprise a fair number of people in bluer regions of the country.

This is probably the case because most people in the media are not fundamentalist/evangelical, and they weren't hearing that "Jerry Falwell was a bigot, a demagogue, and a Pharisee," from those who were, at least while he was alive.

Just so I'm on record here: as a Catholic, William Donohue and his Catholic League do not speak for me or anyone in my extended family. Thank you.

Posted by: JohnS at May 18, 2007 01:58 PM | permalink

Like Gregory, I balked when I read your assertion of the absence of fundamentalists/evangelists in the public sphere prior to the mid-50's. With this new comment on the "interregnum" between Scopes and Billy Graham, I think you remain on questionable footing with this part of your thesis, David.

For example, Billy Sunday was heavily followed and heavily reported and he lived until the mid-30s. Carl Henry's influence can not be easily dismissed. And although I don't think he visited the US until the 60s, Karl Barth occupied the thinking of many in the 40s and 50s.

Kanter is probably not a good example for me to use, but he came to mind as well. Would you allow me to cite Father Coughlin, in spite of the fact that he was, obviously, not a Protestant? In terms of technique, at least, he was very much in the tradition.

Posted by: Nash at May 18, 2007 03:40 PM | permalink

I wonder if there is any funeral that Phelps wouldn't protest...

Revivals (religious and otherwise) come in roughly 80-year cycles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generations_%28book%29

The last two were the Third Great Awakening at the turn of the century, and the one in the 60s and 70s. It's not just a church tent revival thing - all ideologies "awaken" at the same time. Ideological evangelism of all sorts gets hyper for a couple of generations, slacks off for a couple, and gets recharged by the next Awakening.

Posted by: Alan K. Henderson at May 19, 2007 02:18 AM | permalink

Nash,
I've always associated Billy Sunday with the first two decades of the 20th century. His ministry was in serious decline by 1920.

I can't give you Father Coughlin. The people we're talking about don't regard Catholics as Christians. As for Barth, most modern fundamentalists regard the neo-orthodox with the same suspicion as they do the modernists, because the neo-orthodox don't recognize Biblical inerrancy. If this has always been the case, I honestly don't know.

You may have me with Carl Henry. At the very least, he brings the origins of neo-evangelicalism into the late 1940s. But how far was his penetration into popular consciousness I wonder?

Posted by: DD at May 19, 2007 10:51 AM | permalink

"Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins are now the official voices of Christianity with regards to prophesy"

Even after this? - http://www.larknews.com/april_2005/secondary_deaf.php?page=2

Posted by: J at May 19, 2007 07:56 PM | permalink

May 18, 2007

On Jerry Falwell

Comments

Post a comment