Jim Wallis: Falwell's Legacy
I watched much of the cable television coverage of Jerry Falwell’s death and legacy. And I did a lot of grimacing, in response to both the uncritical adulations of his allies (who just passed over the divisive character of much of Falwell’s rhetoric), and also the ugly vitriol from some of Falwell’s enemies (who attacked both his character and his faith). And there were even some who attacked all people of faith. I ended up being glad that I had passed up all the invitations to be on those shows. On the day of Rev. Jerry Falwell’s death, I was content to offer a brief statement, which read:I was saddened to learn that Rev. Jerry Falwell passed away this morning at age 73. Rev. Falwell and I met many times over the years, as the media often paired us as debate partners on issues of faith and politics. I respected his passionate commitment to his beliefs, and our shared commitment to bringing moral debate to the public square, although we didn’t agree on many things. At this time, however, what matters most is our prayers for comfort and peace for his family and friends.Two days later, I might add that Falwell, in his own way, did help to teach Christians that their faith should express itself in the public square and I am grateful for that, even if the positions Falwell took were often at great variance with my own. I spent much of my early Christian life fighting the privatizing of faith, characterized by the withdrawal of any concern for the world (so as to not be “worldly”) and an exclusive focus on private matters. If God so loved the world, God must care a great deal about what happens to it and in it. Falwell agreed with that, and blew the trumpet that awakened fundamentalist Christians to engage the world with their faith and moral values. And that commitment is a good thing. Jerry and I debated often about how faith should impact public life and what all the great moral issues of our time really are.
But many conservative Christians are now also embracing poverty, HIV/AIDS, Darfur, sex trafficking, and even the war in Iraq as matters of faith and moral imperatives. It would have been nice to hear on those TV shows that Jerry Falwell, too, had moved to embrace a broader agenda than just abortion and homosexuality. Rev. Falwell, who was admittedly racist during the civil rights movement, was in later years honored by the Lynchburg NAACP for his turn-about on the issue of race, showing the famous founder of the Religious Right’s capacity to grow and change. But two nights ago on television, I saw the pain on the face of gay Christian Mel White, who lamented that despite his and other’s efforts, Falwell never did even moderate his strong and often inflammatory language (even if maintaining his religious convictions) against gay and lesbian people. They still feel the most wounded by the fundamentalist minister’s statements; that healing has yet to be done.
Ralph Reed said that Jerry Falwell presided over the “marriage ceremony” between religious fundamentalists and the Republican Party. That’s still a concern about the Religious Right for many of us, and should be a warning for the relationship of any so-called religious left with the Democrats. But perhaps in the overly partisan mistakes that Jerry Falwell made - and actually pioneered - we can all be instructed in how to forge a faith that is principled but not ideological, political but not partisan, engaged but not used. That’s how the Catholic Bishops put it, and it is a better guide than the direction we got from the Moral Majority. But Falwell proclaimed a public faith, not a private one. And I am with him on that. As I like to say, God is personal, but never private. So let’s pray for Jerry Falwell’s family, the members of his Thomas Road Baptist Church, and all the students at his Liberty University. And let’s learn from his legacy - about how and how not to best apply our faith to politics.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Your movement is clearly wedded to the Democratic party, so I don't think you've quite learned the lesson you refer to.
Posted by: cs | May 17, 2007 8:08 PM
cs..That is an irrational statement. When have you heard a biblical basis argued for the wealthy-serving policies of the Republican party? SoJO does not serve either party but to bring a gospel driven critque to policy and political discussions. Lighten-up and broaden-up a bit. george
Posted by: george | May 17, 2007 8:21 PM
I think the Sojo movement is wedded to liberal ideology, just as the moral majority was wedded to conservative ideology. These ideologies tend to find a home in the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively, though I think the wedding is rather vicarious.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 17, 2007 8:23 PM
Falwell's comments on homosexuality were perfectly legitimate expressions of Christian doctrine, even if they were crudely and unkindly stated. It is the duty of Christians to take stands against societal evils; poverty certainly is one, but so is homosexuality. Don't condemn Falwell for saying these thing.
Posted by: Ben Wheaton | May 17, 2007 8:43 PM
Ignoring the temptation to rebut clearly "ideological" critiques found in the previous posts, I laud Jim Wallis for his diplomatic gesture towards the late Rev. Falwell. And yet, I wonder to what extent the "bringing faith into the public sphere" adulation expressed by Wallis isn't somewhat of a red herring. For what the Emperor Constantine accomplished at the turn of Christendom was, indeed, wedding the church to politics, yet, as theologians such as Stanley Hauerwas and John Howard Yoder, and even Brain Walsh would put it, this is the "empire" problem that Christianity has struggled with since we wielded the cross on our shields and swords in the first place. I would like to suggest that the privitisation and transcendentalism of Christianity is not an apolitical gesture, but a gesture with certain political effects (that of buying into the Liberal-and I mean Rawlsian-Hobbesian Liberal, here) idea that there is even an apolitical space in the first space. So might we acknowledge, with (gasp!) feminists and the women's movement, that the personal is political at all times? And perhaps envision a movement in our faith communities that would not just rally and call for the majority to bow to Christendom, to our "moral might", but to actually take up a life of non-violent, self-giving, cruciform love...as Jesus did.
Posted by: JH | May 17, 2007 8:44 PM
"When have you heard a biblical basis argued for the wealthy-serving policies of the Republican party?" This presumes that the policies only serve the wealthy. The counterargument is that taxation stifles job growth, which makes life harder for the poor. You don't hear a biblical basis for that either.
In their opinion, Sojo is simply enacting the will of God. That opinion carries with it the assumptions that they bring to the table, which have nothing to do with scripture.
It would be from the purpose of this post to debate which tact is most successful, but there are two sides to this particular coin. Simply saying God is on your side doesn't make it so.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 17, 2007 8:44 PM
"It is the duty of Christians to take stands against societal evils; poverty certainly is one, but so is homosexuality. Don't condemn Falwell for saying these thing." It is also the duty of Christians to be civil and winsome. Saying that AIDS is God's judgment on the homosexual is (in addition to having been proven factually inaccurate) in violation of the way we are called to treat our fellow man. Those would lump anyone who labels homosexuality in with the Jerry Falwell's of the world does so in error, I think. If that is what you meant to say, then I agree with you.
However, one of Falwell's great sins was to add such inflammatory fire to the discussion of Christian sexual ethics that reasonable conversation on the subject has been nearly impossible since.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 17, 2007 8:49 PM
This presumes that the policies only serve the wealthy. The counterargument is that taxation stifles job growth, which makes life harder for the poor. You don't hear a biblical basis for that either. In fact, those policies do serve only the wealthy because the poor aren't often hired in the first place, for too many reasons to mention here. That said, there is one major difference between Sojourners and the Moral Majority (or any other conservative media "ministry"): The conservatives have always kissed up to the economic elites and were thus unable to speak prophetically on a consistent basis when such elites ran afoul of God's laws governing economics. Indeed, Falwell compromised himself from the word go when he fell in with Nixon-era fundraiser Richard Viguerie (whose spiritual leanings, if he has any, I am ignorant of) and Paul Weyrich (who I believe is nominally Catholic); meanwhile, II Corinthians 6:14 tells us, "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers." On the other hand, Sojourners, which is older than the Moral Majority, was always doing its ministry without the backing of the Democratic Party. Now, some Democrats may have jumped on the Sojo bandwagon since the 2004 general election, but you best believe that it would keep on doing what it's been doing no matter how "hot" it is right now. It has never pretended or sought to be in any "majority," thus freeing it to be what God called it to be, which is why Wallis is here, figurately and literally, and Falwell became a has-been nearly two decades ago.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | May 17, 2007 9:47 PM
Ben Wheaton | 05.17.07 - 2:48 pm | #
Well written - I believe that we do more for the Kingdom when we show the 'sweeter' side of the Almighty. But scripture is very direct on many issues and behaviors. They are not the Ten Suggestions... When God talk about murder of the innocent - he said, Thou Shalt Not Kill. When he talked about not lying, He said Thou Shalt Not Bear False Wittness. Yes the New Testement talks about Loving God with all you heart, soul and mind and you neighbor as yourself. But 'love your neighbor' was defined as friendship and not sex. It is not 'me' that is saying these things it is Holy Scripture. (and not just the red words) We also need to look at the OT through NT eyes. Blessings - .
Posted by: moderatelad | May 17, 2007 9:49 PM
"The conservatives have always kissed up to the economic elites and were thus unable to speak prophetically on a consistent basis when such elites ran afoul of God's laws governing economics. " Well, kissing-up is your term. Wallis was present at Davos, although one could argue that those folks were sucking up to him.
"It has never pretended or sought to be in any "majority," thus freeing it to be what God called it to be, which is why Wallis is here, figurately and literally, and Falwell became a has-been nearly two decades ago." Really? You don't think that members of this organization want their ideas to represent the majority? I don't think the viewpoints of the moral majority were crafted based on what the majority wanted. That's a bit of a reach.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 17, 2007 9:58 PM
Kevin S., Yes, that's what I meant. I, too, disapproved of many of Falwell's less temperate remarks. We must always speak the truth in love--so long as we speak the truth, and when it comes to the choice between speaking the truth cruelly and not speaking the truth at all, I favour the former. Still, it's best to keep to the middle way.
Posted by: Ben Wheaton | May 17, 2007 10:17 PM
You don't think that members of this organization want their ideas to represent the majority? I don't think the viewpoints of the moral majority were crafted based on what the majority wanted. That's a bit of a reach. The original church sought only to be faithful, not to be a majority, and if you're in ministry to get people to agree with you you have no business there. On the other hand, the idea of a "moral majority" always sounded to me quite arrogant, that "most people think the way we do, and if we just hold to that we'll have victory." That, of course, is why it produced a lot of heat but lasted less than a decade.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | May 17, 2007 10:21 PM
"The original church sought only to be faithful, not to be a majority, and if you're in ministry to get people to agree with you you have no business there." Sojourners is not the original church.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 17, 2007 10:23 PM
Thank you Jim for putting partisanship aside in your post on Falwell. I thought you said it with grace
Posted by: HASH(0x11c916c8) | May 17, 2007 10:26 PM
My homosexuality is, as Mel White put it, "a gift from God to be celebrated". This is not a defect or a choice...it just is. Nowhere in the Ten Commandments does it mention homosexuality...Do you think God just forgot it? Mel also went on to say how saddened he was at all the young, gay men, from Christian families who had killed themselves. Rev. Falwell (and others) has their blood on his hands and his soul.
Posted by: Jeffrey Holt | May 17, 2007 10:29 PM
Shall we agree to be wedded to the gospel?
Posted by: Lorraine Beckett | May 17, 2007 10:38 PM
There are so many issues Falwell could have made an impact with his voice besides homosexuality. If he had ministered to molested children, infertile/childless couples, and domestic violence think of the impact. Stats at the University of Minnesota state churches have the same ratio of domestic violence as anyone who doesn't go to church, if not even higher where women have less power!
Falwell didn't help women in ordained ministry. So women who are raped or lose a baby have less choice with talking to a female chaplain or minister. His legacy with women is not one of valuing women as called to ordained ministry and when there is violence to get help or out of the violent situation. There aren't enough ministers who care about empowerment for women so that they do not need to stay in violence and so that they can minister in churches and hospitals using their whole brain, their whole calling, and feel the honor of the same love men receive.
Posted by: Charlotte Fairchild | May 17, 2007 10:43 PM
Jim, I was troubled to see so much public adulation of a person who did so much damage to Christianity. I wanted to criticize Falwell's ill-conceived legacy, but chose not to because I could not find words to express my disgust with him that would not be misinterpreted as pleasure in his departure. It is curious how criticism of what Falwell stood for when he was living can become taboo at the moment he died. You did an excellent job of respecting the death without whitewashing the life, and I thank you.
Posted by: John Mitchell | May 17, 2007 10:50 PM
And while you're busy praying for Jerry's family and his church, you might throw in a prayer for all of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people to whom Falwell and his cronies in the evangelical and Republican circles have been so abusive and vicious. Of course, it is hard to lose someone you love, and my condolences are with those who loved him as they grieve. On the other hand, there was Jerry Falwell the public figure. Let's not forget that he was the self-righteous ringleader of horrible hatred. Frankly, his public words belied him as more like a pharisee than a follower. May God have mercy on his soul.
Posted by: peacelover | May 17, 2007 10:51 PM
I applaud Jim's statement, I felt not quite so diplomatic at Falwell's passing the other day. Anyone who publically blames groups of "sinful" people for things like natural disasters, viril epidemics and being bombed by terrorists does not, in my opinion, speak for the God of Scripture...
Truth with vitriol is NOT truth. AT least not God's truth. Truth is not just an idea or a concept. Truth is HOW you convey such an idea or concept. How did God ultimately convey "truth"? - through his People & Prophets and ultimately through Jesus. Jesus did not talk to "sinners" the way Falwell did and still others enjoy doing. And arrogance and pride, last time I checked, where also grave sins needing to be brought before the Lord. God is looking for a contrite heart, not a mean one to be his witness. What brings people to "repentance"? (supposing that is someone's "goal" when they use phrases like "speak the truth with love" to justify saying horrible things to other human beings) Oh, that's right, infallable Scripture says "kindness"... hm...
I became a Christian not because a public figure demeaned me or any of my struggles. I came to know Jesus because someone cared enough about me to love me just as I was and trust that GOD changes people & redeems hearts... and He begin my journey of change... to HIS glory. Not MY glory... nor for the benefit of saying mean things to people in the name of God's truth.
Did Jesus tell the women caught in adultery (leaving aside for a second that fact that the man she was having adultery with was never brought before Jesus because Jewish men of that time believed women caused men to sin) the hard truth of "go and sin no more" YES. He did. But he said it when all of those mocking her had LEFT of their own accord and he didn't need to call her a whore to do it. Would Falwell have been so kind to her? I wonder...
Posted by: Erin | May 17, 2007 10:56 PM
Ben Wheaton... I disagree with your opinion that Fallwell accurately described Christian doctrine regarding homosexuality. Jesus Christ never stated one word against homosexuality.
The anti-homosexual belief is based solely on doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church that quoted Paul who quoted Leviticus. Period. Case closed. Jesus, on the other hand, warned about hypocrisy and deceptiveness. He was angered by deception. Adultery is about promiscuousness, monogamy, and DECEPTION, NOT about sex. Jesus Christ's words have been twisted for centuries.
The Ethiopian eunuch (book of Acts), at first, refused baptism because he felt he would not be accepted due to his physical condition. He was re-assured that was not the case and was baptised on the spot. That eunuch was fearful that baptism would put him in a position of denying his physical condition (being deceptive) and therefore would not be able to live up to what Jesus Christ had taught.
Paul quoted Leviticus because of the public displays of sex he encountered (in his travels to various congregations) and because he was dealing with a culture that thought it natural for every male to have a male lover. That is NOT what homosexuality means for EVERYONE today.
Rather than homosexual stalkers (as fear-ridden people imply), I would argue that there are more right wing fundamentalists who, in a mean-spirited sense, stalk people with their cult-like fear that leads to conformity to their one-sided narrow view of life. Such people DO NOT have all the answers to life and I, for one, am irritated and offended at the constant arrogance that harrasses so many of us - derived from right wing fundamentalism.
Any faith that is based totally on fear is no faith at all. No one put the wrath of hell before me if I did not attend church. I freely attended church and LEARNED my faith - as it should be. We have lived for centuries with warped religions that believe that Jesus Christ was a preacher. He was not a preacher, but a teacher. And Jesus Christ was the best teacher ever.
And as for political affiliation, it always has puzzled me why it is okay for religious right people to affiliate with Republicans, but those of us who are more progressive and seek like-thinking people through the Democratic Party are treated like we are a bunch of bastards. I am offended by this constant one-sided approach by people whom I consider to be nothing but bullies.
Posted by: Doug | May 17, 2007 10:57 PM
To Ben Wheaton: How would you like me to call you EVIL. How dare you!!! This is the problem with religion and organized religion and people who say they so call worship and follow Jesus, get real!
Stop calling people EVIL just because they don't fit into your so called mold. May God have mercy on your soul and May he have mercy on Falwell's soul. I will pray for you!
Posted by: Barbara | May 17, 2007 10:57 PM
I'm grateful for Jim's thoughtful and edifying piece on the death of Jerry Falwell. As a person who has come out of the fundamentalist side of the Christian faith, I too felt a bit of sadness at the news of Rev. Falwell's death; a sadness that arises from the fact that Rev. Falwell may have died without seeing more of who Jesus is and who He is asking us to be. My prayers go with the Falwell family, his church and the students at Libery University.
Posted by: Patrick Murray (the Nehemiah C | May 17, 2007 10:57 PM
I think that Wallis is more gracious than I could ever be. I find purported alleged Christians like Fawell to be my greatest challenge to remaining Christian. While I could countance his loyalty to his own beliefs what I found offensive was his decision that his view of what Jesus of Narareth taught was the right view and that he had the right to demean people whose views were different and to be willing to limit the civil rights of those that he viewed as "sinners". I found very little about anything he said to be rooted in the gospel as he always felt as though he began from a premise of self-righteousness and yes despising God's children. I personally am glad he was never my sherpard. When I think of him I think of the passage of "there will be many who call Lord Lord and do not know me"
Michael
Posted by: Michael P. Melendez | May 17, 2007 10:58 PM
I must confess that the first thing that came to mind upon learning of the passing of the Reverend Falwell s death was a line from the Wizard of Oz Hail Dorothy, the wicked witch is dead. Fawlell was certainly a controversial religious figure, provocative, disruptive, and disturbing. He was not one to seek common ground but seemed to embrace and celebrate division and conflict among the faithful. Jerry Falwell s public comments often reflected a deep-rooted hatred and bigotry rather than deep-rooted love, mercy, and compassion. It seems to me that Christians should be known for their love speech and not for their hate speech . Sadly, his public statements often served to exclude rather than include those who are marginalized, disregarded, and dismissed by society and many churches. Someone once suggested that the trait of healthy ministers is to show up, shut up, and know that it not about you . It is painfully obvious that the Reverend Falwell did not adopt this model of ministry.
Posted by: Most Rev. Lou A. Bordisso | May 17, 2007 11:01 PM
I am grateful for the thoughtful and edifying piece written by Jim on the death of Jerry Falwell. As a Christian recently freed from the more rigid side of our faith, I too was saddened by the news of Rev. Falwell's death; a sadness that arises from the fact that he may have died without knowing the fulness of Jesus' love for humankind. My prayers go with the Falwell family, his church and the students at Liberty University.
Posted by: Patrick Murray (the Nehemiah C | May 17, 2007 11:01 PM
During the early years of the Moral Majority a bumper sticker made the statement: "The Christian Right is Neither Christian nor Right." Truer words were never written.
Posted by: Mark Kelly | May 17, 2007 11:02 PM
Jim's healing comments brought tears to my eyes. I would hate to be remembered for just a handful of my views, but that's all we heard about Rev. Fallwell on the news programs. It seems the evil he did lives after him, the good will be buried with his bones.
That's too bad. Rev. Falwell strengthed the faith of some people, by making victims of others. That's also too bad. I agree with Jim, Brother Falwell left us many lessons to learn.
Posted by: Jim Meisner Jr. | May 17, 2007 11:04 PM
Sojourners is not the original church. And it doesn't pretend to be. My point is that truth is not determined by majority rule.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | May 17, 2007 11:06 PM
Rick Nowlin, Thank you for your well reasoned posts. I think that they are well reasoned and cut to the chase.
Posted by: Sarasotakid | May 17, 2007 11:07 PM
And to show my commitment to Christ-like love of those with whom I disagree, I'm going to church Sunday morning at Thomas Roads Baptist Church, to show my support for a congregation who has lost the pastor . . . a pastor with whom I disagreed on nearly every issue. But who remains a brother in Christ.
Posted by: Jim Meisner Jr. | May 17, 2007 11:07 PM
"My homosexuality is, as Mel White put it, "a gift from God to be celebrated". This is not a defect or a choice...it just is. Nowhere in the Ten Commandments does it mention homosexuality...Do you think God just forgot it? Mel also went on to say how saddened he was at all the young, gay men, from Christian families who had killed themselves. Rev. Falwell (and others) has their blood on his hands and his soul."
Utterly absurd. To suggest for a nano-second that Jerry Falwell or anyone who takes a similar stance as he did against homosexuality either from a moral or political perspective "have blood on their hands" is truly beyond the pale. Suicidal individuals have extreme mental and emotional problems that are not the fault of anyone else. No one can be blamed for someone else's emotional instability.
You arguement is also ridiculous. The 10 Commandments are not the totality of the laws that Christians or Jews are meant to live by, they are part of the foundation.If that is the case, why bother with the rest of scripture? Why as Christians should we bother with the life of Christ and his teachings as a model to live by? Lastly, to suggest that something that "just is" is reason enough to "celebrate" it, is not only completely self-serving, it is dangerous. There are any number of things that "just are" in this world. They surely do not all merit celebration. Many merit condemnation. I think you have summed up one of the principal reasons why the left in the US is seen as being out of touch with reality and lacking in any sound judgement making ability about the differences between right and wrong. It is still an "if it feels good, do it" mentality with the left.
Posted by: elsa | May 17, 2007 11:08 PM
Ah...looking at the OT throught NT eyes. Good idea. Jesus threw out parts of the Old Testament. Like the part on divorce. So how do we do that?
Posted by: Sarasotakid | May 17, 2007 11:10 PM
"Would Falwell have been so kind to her? I wonder..." There was quite a difference between Falwell the public figure and Falwell the private man. Falwell the private man had many friendships across the aisle, even befriending Larry Flynt after their whole brou-ha-ha.
That does not wash the incendiary remarks from the public record, but I think it does speak to how he would have treated the adultress on a personal level.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 17, 2007 11:15 PM
Elsa, Do you have to "try" to be straight? No? Then it just "is", too. Having your religious and political leaders telling you that you are inherently evil can cause otherwise sane individuals to reconsider life. You are pathetic and closed minded.
Posted by: Jeffrey Holt | May 17, 2007 11:19 PM
And to show my commitment to Christ-like love of those with whom I disagree, I'm going to church Sunday morning at Thomas Road Baptist Church, to show my support for a congregation who has lost the pastor . . . a pastor with whom I disagreed on nearly every issue. But who remains a brother in Christ. Go for it. Like him or not, we'll be seeing a lot of him in the next life.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | May 17, 2007 11:21 PM
On the other hand, I don't think we can simply say that, because Falwell believed something, we needn't believe it. Contrary to the exegesis on display here, the Bible does indicate homosexuality as a sin. That Jerry Falwell articulated this poorly is a shame, because it has blinded many to this particular truth. It is obviously not THE important truth, and certainly homosexuals need to be approached with love.
For some, this declaration puts me in the same boat of intolerance as Falwell. That is unfortunate, but I am unwilling to reject scriptural texts outright because someone might consider me a bigot.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 17, 2007 11:23 PM
"Someone once suggested that the trait of healthy ministers is to show up, shut up, and know that it not about you . It is painfully obvious that the Reverend Falwell did not adopt this model of ministry." And neither does your Wizard of Oz reference reflect this model, Reverend.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 17, 2007 11:26 PM
Kevin While I don't know Falwell the private man (did you meet him?). I do know Falwell the public man. And considering the names he was willing to call people in the press and in the pulpit... I find it hard to believe he would have treated her the same way Jesus did. We can agree to disagree (as we do on most points, I have found) and ultimately it is hard to say, which is why I left my point open ended... more importantly to your point: Jesus was the same both public and private... which is what Christians, especially pastors, should strive for... compassion in private when it is safe is not really all that courageous is it? to have compassion in public... to have Jesus NOT condemn her in front of all of those self-righteous men... now that was TRULY COURAGEOUS... so you see, you missed my point and the point of that biblical story... in public Jesus was KIND. In private he spoke truth after PROVING his compassionate love. And, personally, I think we need more courageous, creative and compassionate Christians in the world... for that truly represents Jesus the most powerful way...
Posted by: Erin | May 17, 2007 11:28 PM
Elsa...FYI Jesus also forgot to mention homosexuality. What's your rub?
Posted by: Jeffrey Holt | May 17, 2007 11:36 PM
I didn't meet Falwell the private man, but many did, and told of their experiences. I never met Jesus (take that as I mean it), but I know how HE treated the adultress.
But Jesus was consistent. When someone puts themselves in the public eye, they are doubly accountable for their words, and that is where Falwell failed.
In remembering the man, we have to hold the good in tension with the bad. I have tired of apologizing for Falwell's diatribes myself, but I cannot ignore the good he did.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 17, 2007 11:38 PM
Elsa said: Lastly, to suggest that something that "just is" is reason enough to "celebrate" it, is not only completely self-serving, it is dangerous. There are any number of things that "just are" in this world. They surely do not all merit celebration. Many merit condemnation. I think you have summed up one of the principal reasons why the left in the US is seen as being out of touch with reality and lacking in any sound judgement making ability about the differences between right and wrong. It is still an "if it feels good, do it" mentality with the left. You don't know what the hell you are talking about. Have you ever lost someone or counselled someone that was struggling w/ their sexuality? Do you know anyone that listened to those words and felt so condemned so hated so alone that they chose to hide who they were (broken as it may be?)
My best friend committed suicide because he internalized those evil and hated words Falwell and others felt. Instead of forgiving, healing and just loving people you folks on the right are more concerned w/ being right than loving people. Talk about delusional Jesus was more concerned w/ loving people or did you all for get the woman at the well. Nowhere did Jesus say or imply stop sinning he just gave her living water. Why can't you right wing folks do the same? p
Posted by: Payshun | May 17, 2007 11:38 PM
One more thing Elsa if you are not willing to go to the pains of "changing" your broken sexuality into the form that Peter (the apostle) believed then please be quiet. Peter believed that sex should not be used for pleasure but procreation. It's one of the major reasons he was killed. There were a lot of women converting and he would tell them not to have sex w/ their husbands for pleasure. If that's how you feel and I am not sure you do then by all means then go around preaching your judgement over Christ's compassion. p
Posted by: Payshun | May 17, 2007 11:43 PM
Jeffrey, "Having your religious and political leaders telling you that you are inherently evil can cause otherwise sane individuals to reconsider life." Ridiculous!! If you haven't heard before, the entire human race is called inherintely evil. It's called "original sin"!!
You called me "pathetic and closed minded". Do you think that I am going to lose a wink of sleep over that or question my beliefs or identity because you are intolerant of me? Hardly! I could only be brought to despair if I questioned them myself.
Suicide is not brought on by other people's comments or beliefs. It is brought on by emotional instability and mental illness. Far deeper and more profound suffering is going on in the mind of the person who is suicidal than can be imagined. No sane individual develops mental illness just by having someone disagree with them.
Posted by: elsa | May 17, 2007 11:50 PM
What?
Posted by: Jeffrey Holt | May 17, 2007 11:54 PM
Your dogmas showing!
Posted by: Jeffrey Holt | May 17, 2007 11:56 PM
...and I'll bet that the wink of sleep you don't lose will be in an otherwise empty bed...
Posted by: Jeffrey Holt | May 17, 2007 11:58 PM
No sane individual develops mental illness just by having someone disagree with them. That is not what I said...I said having your religous and spiritual leaders telling you that you are inherently evil could lead a young person to reconsider life. I know this angers you, but it is true. oxox
Posted by: Jeffrey Holt | May 18, 2007 12:02 AM
The anti-homosexual belief is based solely on doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church that quoted Paul who quoted Leviticus. Period. Case closed. Doug | 05.17.07 - 5:02 pm
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. Catechism of the Catholic Church 2358. http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.htm
Posted by: neuro_nurse | May 18, 2007 12:04 AM
Payshun, Jesus told people to "go and sin no more" quite frequently in fact. You are right in that the individual needs to be loved. Absolutely. You love them and want the best for them. However, there is nothing loving about condoning everything a person does. Every parent knows that. Everyone who has sat with a suffering friend knows that. There is a difference between loving a person and agreeing with them. We all love people we do not agree with at all times and if we love them, it is our duty to tell them what we think. So no, I won't be quiet. I'm sorry for your friend. I too lost someone to suicide and I know first hand that the problems run far deeper than the surface would show.
Posted by: elsa | May 18, 2007 12:05 AM
Funny the Rev. Falwell never preached against those guilty of the sin of gluttony...oh, that's right, you can't raise millions off THAT sin.
Posted by: Doreen | May 18, 2007 12:05 AM
Why are we not spending more time on Martin Luther Kings' daughter that died yesterday? A large percentage of this country is racist/homophobic whether it wants to admit it or not.
Posted by: Kathleen Green | May 18, 2007 12:07 AM
Whenever I speak to people who I would categorize along with Rev Falwell as the religious right, especially when they pontificate about homosexuals, I feel as though they skipped over the parable of the Good Samaritan. All the holier than thou'ers passed by the dying traveller and only a despised Samaritan had the Agape to care for him.
The great sin of Jerry Falwell and his ilk is to not see that the despised homosexuals are fully capable and often are closer to God than the holy rollers. God's gift, the capability to love and care for all His creatures, is unbounded by the prejudice of men (including my just stated prejudice toward the religious right). Accepting His grace completly, as the lesson the Teacher gave us through word and example, is to deny our fear of our fellow man.
Posted by: Bob W. | May 18, 2007 12:07 AM
I do not appreciate being considered "objectively disordered". I would argue that being Catholic is more of a disorder, because your chose it.
Posted by: Jeffrey Holt | May 18, 2007 12:08 AM
Jeffrey, ...and I'll bet that the wink of sleep you don't lose will be in an otherwise empty bed... Nice try, but try again ;-)
You would be really jealous if you saw him!!! ;-)))))
Posted by: elsa | May 18, 2007 12:08 AM
Let me tell you what I believe the Scriptures say about homosexuality, and they don't say much: It represents an outward sign of rebellion against God. Read in their original context, those verses are clear. That said, Falwell's constant demonization of gays and lesbians went well beyond Biblical warrant. But that happens when you reduce the Scripture into a cultural textbook without the understanding that, without the Holy Spirit, you will want neither to obey God nor understand the Scriptures.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | May 18, 2007 12:11 AM
Jesus said; "By their fruits you will know them."
The fruits of Falwell's ministry have been bitterness, hatred, discord and dissension within the church and well-deserved derision from without. There is no telling how many Falwell has turned away from church and indeed from faith.
That is because his ministry was about externals and politics, a mutual-self-congratulation society of the publicly self-righteous who's faith was based on disapproval of the sins of others, rather than learning from, avoiding and atoning for their own sins.
That, and a long con involving rich men, camels and the eyes of needles.
Jim, it may seem uncharitable to say this, but I must; if he's "your brother in Christ," than I'm afraid you need to re-consider what Christian is. There is room for tolerance of diverse opinions and views - but a man who disparages the Beatitudes with his every word is no more Christian than Fred Phelps, who will also be attending the funeral, I'm given to understand.
Elsa:
"Utterly absurd. To suggest for a nano-second that Jerry Falwell or anyone who takes a similar stance as he did against homosexuality either from a moral or political perspective "have blood on their hands" is truly beyond the pale. Suicidal individuals have extreme mental and emotional problems that are not the fault of anyone else. No one can be blamed for someone else's emotional instability." Oh, and if you are standing on the edge of a precipice, and I throw pebbles at you so that you lose your balance and fall, is it your fault for not being "stable enough" to maintain your footing?
Of course he has a blood debt. And if you share and express those views in the way Jerry did, so do you, as does anyone who uses the bible as an instrument of emotional harm or to excuse violence or oppression against others. Self-righteousness may blind you to the consequences of your acts and your guilt for those consequences, but you are accountable, whether you believe or not. Re-read the Bible. Concentrate on the RED letters. And remember, Augustine was neither Disciple nor Apostle.
Posted by: Bob King | May 18, 2007 12:14 AM
Some of the adulation this guy received at his funeral was totally undeserved. Falwell set Christianity back decades. I agree with Hitchens, this guy was a huckster.
I also disagree with Wallis and faith. Falwell did not advance faith at all. Falwell confirmed in me the ralization that using faith as an excuse to do anything is to undermine the human potential, not advance it.
Posted by: Milo | May 18, 2007 12:17 AM
"Oh, and if you are standing on the edge of a precipice, and I throw pebbles at you so that you lose your balance and fall, is it your fault for not being "stable enough" to maintain your footing?"
Why would I be standing at the edge of a precipice? How did I get there? Being on the edge would be my doing, would it not?
Posted by: elsa | May 18, 2007 12:18 AM
I find the last paragraph of this blog most interesting. Jim Wallis sees a warning to the "so-called religious left" and their ties to the Democratic party. Yet Sojourners insists on only inviting Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards to their gathering next month. While there is some talk of perhaps holding a second gathering later in the summer and inviting Republican presidential hopefuls again it is only "top tier" candidates. This seems rather hypocritical to me. Why haven't invitations been sent to so called "second tier" cadidates as well? I hope Sojourners is not headed down the same sad path the "moral Majority" took-marrying religion to wealthy, powerful political connections.
Posted by: Joy | May 18, 2007 12:18 AM
Jeffrey Holt, That post was in response to Doug s claim that anti-homosexual belief is based solely on doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Is that a statement with which you agree? I considered editing that sentence from my previous post. My point was not to present the fact that the Church considers homosexuality a sin, but the Church s teaching that followed:
They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.
Frankly, I could not care less whether homosexuality is a sin or not. I have my own sins to deal with. The Bible tells me that I m just as much of a sinner as everyone else. If homosexuality is a sin, is it any worse of a sin than those I or anyone else (including elsa) - commit? Peace!
Posted by: neuro_nurse | May 18, 2007 12:31 AM
Actually Elsa jesus only said it once in the gospel of John. And in case you have not noticed the LGBTQ community knows that they are sinning. That's the only message of your warped gospel that has gotten to them. You love w/ conditions the scriptures call us not to do that. p
Posted by: Payshun | May 18, 2007 12:33 AM
Thank you! A generous and honest statement.
Posted by: Chris Miller | May 18, 2007 12:36 AM
I agree w/ Bob. He has some blood on his hands as does anyone that teaches death over life. That's exactly what Elsa theology is about. It's about condemnation and when those that suffer take in that destruction and make it part of their life they die. It's that simple sometimes it can be quick like in the case of my friend or slower. But either way that is what her theology is about. p
Posted by: Payshun | May 18, 2007 12:36 AM
I am not one who can speak so eloquently as many I have seen here so I will let HIM speak for me. And the last part of this I hope will clarify my concerns. I pray the Lord forgives Falwell as I pray he does all of us for the things we have done that are wrong. If anyone may be offended then I apologize but I am unable to ignore these things. Matthew 7: Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Luke 15: Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them. And he spake this parable unto them, saying, What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
Luke 18: And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. Mark 7: Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/1998/february9/8t2082.html http://www.iapprovethismessiah.com/ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6257517709901358188&q=Rev+moon&hl=en http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5858563460160204776&q=Rev+moon&hl=en http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8364826129247149817&q=Rev+moon&hl=en http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04188/342412.stm
Posted by: Dale B | May 18, 2007 12:38 AM
"Truth with vitriol is NOT truth. AT least not God's truth." Your truth, Falwell spoke his "truth" which I think was sick but it was his truth. The problem I address is ever thinking "you" know the truth. Have your faith but don't try impose it on me which is what Falwell tried successfully to do.
Posted by: butch | May 18, 2007 12:38 AM
"Pray for the memebers of Thomas Roads Baptist church and the students at Liberty University." What? What good will this do? Why not try and educate people so that they don't become memebers of these citadels of ignorance. Praying for them will only embolden their cause.
Posted by: Milo | May 18, 2007 12:44 AM
"It is still an "if it feels good, do it" mentality with the left." elsa If you are not on the left how the hell do you know what I think.
Posted by: butch | May 18, 2007 12:50 AM
Out of curiosity yesterday I read the last sermon Dr. Falwell preached, on Mother's Day. It is worth a look and offers, I think, somewhat more subtle insight into the man and his worldview. It is ostensibly a piece on godly biblical and other mothers and their willing acceptance of God's direction in their lives. To a woman, the direction that he perceives God giving them, that they graciously accepted in his view, was to bear, raise, nurture, protect and support a man or men, who then went on to do great things in their own right. Not a single woman he held up as an example gained his regard as anything other than someone who enabled and supported men's accomplishments.
While hateful pronouncements about homosexuality and other "evils" were his public hallmark, a less visible truth about him and about many "godly" men like him is the belief that women's highest calling and proper role in God's order are to act as support and servant to men. I read yesterday of his vilification of NOW as "the National Organization of Witches." In my view, the rigidly limiting view of women that he held is perhaps the most insidious of the ideas that he and his ilk attempt to propagate. In connection with that, a look at the "executive" page on the Liberty University website is also enlightening.
Posted by: Karen | May 18, 2007 12:51 AM
Thank you, Payshun, exactly.
What is the Gospel? Is it JUST that we need to believe we are horrible, evil sinners? Or is there something we miss when we just preach a gospel filled with hateful accusations about someone else's sin?
Gospel = Good News
And when Jesus said, once, "go and sin no more" it was in the story of the women caught in adultery... Jesus did NOT condemn her in public or call her a whore in front of the religous men who accused her... he sent THEM away, ashamed. Then, in a more private moment we are told that he says "go and sin no more"... after he had already given her back her humanity, after the religious men had stripped that from her. Was she sleeping with a man out of wedlock? Probably. Is that wrong? Yes, the bible says so. There is no condmenation for the MAN who was with her... I find that extremely telling. So were these relgious men "in truth" when they brought her before Jesus as a caught-red-handed sinner... well, Jesus didn't applaud their diligent rooting out of evil publically in the community, despite his care for the covenantal committment of marriage... so why do we give ourselves permission to do that to others? It may be our duty to "tell people what we think" but that is NOT the heart of the Gospel message...
The point, then, isn't that the Gospel gives us permission to point out sins, deluding ourself into thinking we are speaking "truth" and bringing people closer to God. Instead, the Gospel gives us permission to let GOD change people's hearts and lives through his Holy Spirit.
Posted by: Erin | May 18, 2007 12:51 AM
My step-brother was raised in a family that believed that the only thing worse than being gay was being a murdering pedophile---oh wait, I think his dad probably thinks they are the same thing.
He fought his orientation up to and through most of college (a Christian BAPTIST college I might add), and because he believed that he was so evil and deviant, and because there were no healthy individuals available in that climate, he experienced his first relationships in an unsafe environment and contracted AID. He grew up in a Christian household- He had Christian friends- He went to a Christan college- and still he could not "escape" the fact of who he is attracted to and who he loves. He tried again-he went into the Navy, he went to therapy to get "cured", he got married---and then his wife died of colon cancer. He then spent two years in an alcoholic stupor, trying to get over the death of his wife, whom he did love very much, and trying not to be who he was. He is now a happy, healthy, Christian, GAY man with a life partner who loves him, takes care of him, supports him, and accepts him. MY BROTHER IS NOT EVIL!!!! HOW DARE YOU!!!!!
Posted by: Kristi | May 18, 2007 12:51 AM
I was wrong he did say stop sinning several times, once to the woman caught in adultery and to the paralytic by the well. There are some massive cultural implications from how he treated his own people compared to how he treated the Roman Centurion, the woman at the well, the Syro-Phoencian Woman, and the Demoniac. You see Jesus called those that were Jews to different standards than those that were not of the tribe. To ignore that is to miss out on the message God gives to those that follow the Torah. We have to see that if we are going to even begin to love those that are different. p
Posted by: Payshun | May 18, 2007 12:53 AM
"While hateful pronouncements about homosexuality and other "evils" were his public hallmark, a less visible truth about him and about many "godly" men like him is the belief that women's highest calling and proper role in God's order are to act as support and servant to men. I read yesterday of his vilification of NOW as "the National Organization of Witches." In my view, the rigidly limiting view of women that he held is perhaps the most insidious of the ideas that he and his ilk attempt to propagate." Karen, Ah, good point! Thanks for saying that!
Posted by: Erin | May 18, 2007 12:56 AM
Most of us are in agreement that Jerry Falwell (the public figure, at least that s another issue) hurt people with his condemnation of others, judgment and thoughtless words. We all agree that we wish the old song They ll Know We Are Christians By Our Love was more true than it is. We all agree that love is the way of Christ and that (at least one of) Falwell s flaw was not displaying this love very well. But read through the comments that we re posting. I m not pointing the finger, because I default to doing the same thing. (I tend to be a real horse s ass.) We ve been calling names and hardly living up to the same standard that we hold for Rev. Falwell. (I m not equating negative words on a comment board to nationally broadcasting bigotry, but you get the point.) While I had mixed reactions to Falwell s passing, I was really struck by one thing more than anything else: The hypocrisy of his critics. I ve read some nasty, hateful things about Falwell in the last few days. Some wrote about how he is surely in hell and made absurdly offensive accusations about him. Are we not catching the irony? The problem that many people had with Falwell is that he was too judgmental and claimed to know who specifically who was going to heaven and who was going to hell. If this is our problem with him, how can we combat it with judgment and condemnation? I guess my point is that we need to combat hatred with love. Hostility begets hostility, and civility begets civility. If we can t treat each other with love on a simple comment page, maybe we all need to take the plank from out own eyes. Our pride will be our downfall. Surely we can have healthy debate without pride and hurtful words. Again, I include myself in this.
Posted by: Tyler | May 18, 2007 1:05 AM
the Bible does indicate homosexuality as a sin." Kevin S Depends on how you read it and I don't read it that way. All over Leviticus are references to how to treat slaves. It seems that one method of domination of slaves in that time was to booger them as an act of violence in the same way that prisoners do now or men who rape women. I believe God was addressing how to treat slaves. Oops, a whole new theology from the same words.
Posted by: butch | May 18, 2007 1:06 AM
Elsa, What is this "the left" stuff. Have you allowed politics to circumvent HIS WORD? Does anybody really believe that the Lord looks down and says things like "This one is a conservative, they can come in" - "This one is a liberal, they cannot come in"? If you want to play the left/right game then I would ask
Are you aware taxpayer funding (Congression/President's budget) for pro-abortion organizations has gone up substantially in the past 6 years? Why did the current President say that we "all worship the same God but we have different avenues of getting to Heaven"? Why did the current President pray to allah in a Mosque while in the Middle East and to a Shinto Daemon God while in Japan? Why does the current administration condone torture? Why are Border Patrol agents being sent to prison for doing their job? Why has the current President been working on eliminating the U.S. and making Canada, Mexico and the U.S. virtually one country? It is easy to play the left/right game but all that does is make you a pawn of those using the Hegelian dialectic.
Posted by: Dale B | May 18, 2007 1:12 AM
Tyler But most of us have said nothing hateful. Some have expressed outrage, anger and hurt but I have seen none of us call Elsa, Kevin or others that believe as they did evil. p
Posted by: Payshun | May 18, 2007 1:22 AM
Butch Good point. Also if you want to use the Levitical laws to condemn homosexuality then you also need to preach that men cannot have sex with their wives during their menstrual cycles with the same fervrency. For God also calls THAT an abomination.
Posted by: Erin | May 18, 2007 1:25 AM
"and still he could not "escape" the fact of who he is attracted to and who he loves." Interesting that I don't seem to be able to "escape" my straightness. I mean I'm crazy about women, have been since I was about 11 and don't seem to be able to "escape" it.
Posted by: butch | May 18, 2007 1:27 AM
"Funny the Rev. Falwell never preached against those guilty of the sin of gluttony...oh, that's right, you can't raise millions off THAT sin." I wish Christians would pay more attention to food issues in general. Not in a condemning way, but in a "let's care more about our temples" sort of way. And yes, Falwell's focus on homosexuality was unwarranted.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 18, 2007 1:33 AM
"The hypocrisy of his critics. I ve read some nasty, hateful things about Falwell in the last few days." I have said hateful things about other despots who cause great harm to many, Stalin, Idi Amin, Fulgencio Batista, Francois Duvalier, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, Iran, Pol Pot, Halie Salassie, General Suharto, Saddam Hussian, if you like I can go on.
What type of crusade might he lead in another place or time?
Posted by: butch | May 18, 2007 1:45 AM
Memorial to Reverend Jerry Falwell Loud and Hearty now! (You all know the tune.) First Verse: (And Chorus) Gimme that ol' Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ It'll make a pot o' money for me. Second Verse: Oh! My name is Jerry Falwell; I'm a franchise holder, you see. Third Verse: I'm a rabid bibliolater; It makes good money for me. Fourth Verse: I totally despise all science; Money's the thing for me. Fifth Verse: Creationism's my racket; Money, more money, for me. Sixth Verse: I'm Far Right Wing Republican; Politics makes money for me. Seventh Verse: I'm a bigoted anti-homo; More and more money for me. Eighth Verse: I'm an anti-abortion crusader; More money in the pocket for me. Ninth Verse: I'M THE WHOLE MORAL MAJORITY; Fame,and more money for me. All together now! Gimme that ol' Je$u$ Bu$ine$$! Gimme that ol' Je$u$ Bu$ine$$! Gimme that ol' Je$u$ Bu$ine$$! It's the MONEY MAKER for ME! Good Riddance!
Posted by: Colin J. Guthrie | May 18, 2007 1:48 AM
Oh please, STOP! Now people are getting ugly on both sides! Jesus is crying! STOP IT!
Posted by: Kristi | May 18, 2007 1:51 AM
Great statement, Jim. I really appreciate your sincere and authentically compassionate attitude towards Falwell--I've never thought about the relatively positive things he contributed or areas in which he grew, and you've caused me to change my discourteous and slightly judgemental attitude towards his passing away. It's tension in the most literal sense that creates balance for the church, and even though I have a problem with extremism on either end, if even extremists can be willing to engage, there's sure to be something good that comes of the dialogue. And dialogue/courteous, rational debate is something we Americans suck at for sure. Just visit any message board (including ours, here), and we can see our problem! So thanks for the reminder that we all have something to gain from dialoging with people with whom we disagree greatly.
Posted by: usagi | May 18, 2007 1:52 AM
Well done Jim. You and I don t agree too much, but your graciousness seems to be returning a welcome resurgence after watching you grow more and more vicious and embittered. ---- Jeffrey: Do you think God just forgot it? -Jeffrey, the absence from the Ten Commandments is unfortunately irrelevant, as a lot of things I wouldn t expect anyone to defend are absent.
Your dogmas showing! -Dogma is not a bad thing; it s necessary, actually, but should be limited to what ought to be dogmatic. Unchecked dogmatism is ideology. --- Charlotte, you speak of Church leadership as if it s a privilege or a status symbol or a completion of spiritual life instead of the burden, the scary scary burden that it s generally portrayed as in Scripture Let not many of you become teachers and all. --- Erin, Truth is HOW you convey such an idea or concept. -I disagree. Speak the truth in love implies that there is another way to speak truth. Love is how you portray Truth. --- Doug, Jesus Christ never stated one word against homosexuality. The anti-homosexual belief is based solely on doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church that quoted Paul who quoted Leviticus. Period. Case closed. -I m pretty sure it was Paul in Scripture not in Roman Catholic doctrine. Additionally, the epistles of Paul and the book of Leviticus are part of Christian doctrine. As nice as it would be to remove Christ from all context In any case, your exegesis is wishful, at best. And I would wager that Jesus was both teacher and preacher, as he did stand in the pulpit at times in the Jewish synagogues. Also note that at times, Jesus did use the threat of hell to get attention. Yes, He taught love, but He didn t overlook hell either. Further, Doug, the progressives (aka this blog) assault the right for aligning with the Republicans just as much as the conservatives assault the left for aligning with the Democrats. The progressive evangelicals gets attacked for pretending neutrality and non-affiliation. --- Barbara, How would you like me to call you EVIL. How dare you!!! -I am evil, you are evil, my pops is evil, my brother is evil, his wife is evil. That s why we have a SAVIOR . because we re all a bunch of evil people, broken wounded and twisted by separation from God. If we weren t evil, Jesus should have skipped the Cross. --- Sarasota, Jesus threw out parts of the Old Testament. Like the part on divorce. -Bologna. Not one jot or tittle. His point with divorce was more that our gracious God meets us where we are NOT that the divorce ruling was irrelevant. --- P, Nowhere did Jesus say or imply stop sinning he just gave her living water. Why can't you right wing folks do the same? -As stated, Jesus was not reticent to point out sin in the right context. I think the implication in this particular passage is clear: what you re looking for with all those men you will find in Me. I do agree, P, that the answer to sin is not condemnation, but freedom and satisfaction at the Cross.
Peter believed that sex should not be used for pleasure but procreation. It's one of the major reasons he was killed. There were a lot of women converting and he would tell them not to have sex w/ their husbands for pleasure. -Reference?
Posted by: Mark P | May 18, 2007 2:00 AM
Doreen, Funny the Rev. Falwell never preached against those guilty of the sin of gluttony...oh, that's right, you can't raise millions off THAT sin. -Ha! It does alternately amuse and anger me the way that we Christians often pick-and-choose our pet-peeve sins. --- Rick, That said, Falwell's constant demonization of gays and lesbians went well beyond Biblical warrant. But that happens when you reduce the Scripture into a cultural textbook without the understanding that, without the Holy Spirit, you will want neither to obey God nor understand the Scriptures. -Big amen. Again, the tendency to select sin is a huge problem. --- Bob, Re-read the Bible. Concentrate on the RED letters. And remember, Augustine was neither Disciple nor Apostle. -Hmm. My Bible doesn t have any red letters. Apparently somewhere between the original texts and the Vulgate, the red lettering got lost. I m glad NIV was able to rediscover that gem. Oh, and also remember that Augustine is probably more intelligent than anyone alive today. Which is not to say I fully agree with him, but I do think this contemporary snobbishness is silly. --- butch, Your truth, Falwell spoke his "truth" which I think was sick but it was his truth. -Unfortunately, your truth, my truth, and Falwell s truth will all be naught in the light of Truth. --- Kristi, MY BROTHER IS NOT EVIL!!!! HOW DARE YOU!!!!! -Sure he is. So are you. And me (most definitely, believe you me). And Falwell. And Jim Wallis. You can t come to Christ unless you need Him.
Posted by: Mark P | May 18, 2007 2:01 AM
It's funny, I read the article and was pleased to read a piece looking for the strengths of the man (Falwell) from one who could have easily found fault (Sojo). I was pleased with what I read because the author chose to see Christ in the Falwell than the man Falwell. Regardless of opinion, ideology, partisian politics I have just read an article lifting up our connection in Baptism. There was a freshness to the piece because it was not the locked horns of Christian ideology. What makes it funny is that I go from the article to the comments and most of what I read simply misses the point. I read comment after comment seeking to blast the dead or the author for failing to address the readers particular ideological stand...you will know them as Christians by their love. Love is not easy. It is a choice. We are called by the Master to both love and love our enemies. Choose this.
Posted by: Scott | May 18, 2007 2:02 AM
Falwell did not preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. He was a bigot and a charlatan.
Posted by: Alan Barthel | May 18, 2007 2:06 AM
Falwell preached of his own paranoias and fears. I believe that the Bible was written by men (sic), not God, who had been inspired in their faith to record stories and events. They wrote over 2,000 years ago, a time where an evil eye cast upon another could mean deaath. An ancient time where Jews were feuding tribes. Scripture was written to give reason and order to life. Jerry Fawell took passages from that book and twisted them to suit his purpose. Hate towards other human beings does not belong in the pulpit. Fawell had a lot of hates, and promulgated these feelings to his followers.
Posted by: HD Palmer | May 18, 2007 2:06 AM
I pray not only for Rev. Falwell's family, but for his soul. He twisted the message of the Gospel so much that I tremble with fear when I contemplate how our Lord will judge him. I don't pretend to know how Jesus will judge anyone, but I suspect that many politically conservative Christians (Falwell among them) will be in for a rude surprise on the final judgment day.
Posted by: Michael Skarpelos | May 18, 2007 2:17 AM
I thought that Falwell brought much reproach to the name of Christ and Christianity. However, regardless of what I believe about him, God has the final say on what he said and did while he was here.
Jesus said in Matt:7, "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
This applies to all professing Christians, including Falwell and Bush. The Sovereign God of the universe knows who are His and who are not - we can only look at their deeds and make a guess. Falwell is now making his case and answering for his deeds while he was here on earth. Our Lord will enact the righteous judgement that eluded Falwell down here.
Posted by: bennie | May 18, 2007 2:18 AM
Falwell was a hatemonger and phony. But now he knows that all his hate was for not, period.
Posted by: shawn olsen | May 18, 2007 2:29 AM
I hope and trust that God has opened her great, loving arms to Jerry Falwell and has embraced him with the grace and forgiveness that none of us deserve or comprehend. In my mind's eye, she has proceeded to introduce him to all those "sinners" who also now delight in God's presence and light for all eternity. What more could even those of us who despised what he represented hope for Brother Jerry, or for ourselves, than to understand at last that our small, petty minds cannot fathom or contain the love of God for all of her children, just as someone once tried in vain and then died to teach us?
Posted by: Karen | May 18, 2007 2:30 AM
I am so glad that only Jesus is the judge, but I have seen Rev. Jerry Falwell live a Pharisee life towards people who disagreed with him rather than one filled with Jesus' grace and love. I pray his profession of faith and repentance of sins sense will gain him access to the Father.
Posted by: Gary Lee Parker | May 18, 2007 2:30 AM
I pay my respects to Jerry Falwell for his sincere, passionate and faithful work to make known the gospel of Jesus Christ. The university he was so influential in starting stand as a tribute to decent and diginified education in the tradition of the nation's early schools deeply committed to having the Bible be at the center of learning. Jim Wallis wrote a fairly good piece. I don'' see people trying to be sugary and syruppy about him, but I sure see the mean, sour and bitter responses even on this site that go way over the top.
Posted by: Mel | May 18, 2007 2:33 AM
"We must always speak the truth in love--so long as we speak the truth, and when it comes to the choice between speaking the truth cruelly and not speaking the truth at all, I favour the former." Ben Wheaton And they want us to believe that only the progressives/liberals twist Scripture to their liking. Puh-leez!
Posted by: Canucklehead | May 18, 2007 2:35 AM
Have you ever lost someone or counselled someone that was struggling w/ their sexuality? Do you know anyone that listened to those words and felt so condemned so hated so alone that they chose to hide who they were (broken as it may be?) My best friend committed suicide because he internalized those evil and hated words Falwell and others felt. Instead of forgiving, healing and just loving people you folks on the right are more concerned w/ being right than loving people. Payshun Payshun, I can feel the pain in those words. I have been very close to someone who was going through that trauma and it hurt him more than he could even put words to. He found support in two ways. First in Exodus Ministry, he found friends who loved and accepted him as he was and helped him get some semblance of order. Second he frequented an open and affirming Christian Church. The common thread between the two groups was that the Exodus Group did not seek to change him (although that is what Exodus many times tries to do). They loved him and provided a sense of community of people who are going through the same thing. The open and affirming church did the same. The common denominator was love. My friend still struggles, sometimes falls into situations he doesn't want to be in, but he has found the love of Christ in these two disparate groups. Why? Because they loved him. If he had been left to the likes of Falwell, he would have been dead long ago.
Posted by: Sarasotakid | May 18, 2007 2:45 AM
What is it you don't understant about gays? It is a sin, read 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
"Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you.
"But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Posted by: Jon Johnston | May 18, 2007 2:45 AM
I ask this question. Would Jerry Fawell take a donation for his church/university, of a million dollars if he knew it came from a homosexual? The reason I ask this, is I really don't know his heart, only God knows.
Posted by: HD Palmer | May 18, 2007 2:47 AM
"...but I sure see the mean, sour and bitter responses even on this site that go way over the top" Mel - you really only respect & admire Falwell? You don't see ANY reason why someone might be "sour" towards him? Really? You think THIS blog is "way over the top" but some of the things Falwell said, weren't? I would call that a selective understanding of a complex person and convenient rewriting of the reality of recent history. I have yet to read ANYTHING on this blog that is as disrespectful, sour, bitter or mean-spirited as the things that Falwell said often and in very public venues about a wide variety of fellow human beings created in the image of God. You can respect Falwell, if you see him worthy of it, but allow that many of us see him as someone to be mourned, but not respected. And that in many people's opinions his rude & disrepectful remarks actually HINDERED the Gospel messagethat he seemed to so love... and that is something that does make some more than a tad upset.
Posted by: Erin | May 18, 2007 2:48 AM
And now for something "Utterly absurd" and "totally beyond the pale." "Suicidal individuals have extreme mental and emotional problems that are not the fault of anyone else. No one can be blamed for someone else's emotional instability." Elsa In your effort to make a point, you have grossly, and I mean, grossly, overstated your case. God help you, Elsa, and us!
Posted by: Canucklehead | May 18, 2007 2:51 AM
Fallwell sodomized Chrisitianity for far too long. Bye-Bye dude!
Posted by: Tom | May 18, 2007 2:51 AM
Thanks, Jim, as always for your cogent, clear, fair, charitable and compassionate commnets.
Posted by: Charlie | May 18, 2007 2:53 AM
There was quite a difference between Falwell the public figure and Falwell the private man. Falwell the private man had many friendships across the aisle, even befriending Larry Flynt after their whole brou-ha-ha.
That does not wash the incendiary remarks from the public record, but I think it does speak to how he would have treated the adultress on a personal level. kevin s. Kevin, most behavioralists I'm familiar with would see that as some form of passive-aggressive dysfunction.
Posted by: Canucklehead | May 18, 2007 2:55 AM
I don't get it. What's with all this "Yeah, Falwell said/did this harsh stuff in public, but privately he was really kind/compassionate...etc. etc." Didn't we used to call that hypocrisy, albeit a kind of bizarre reversed-hypocrisy?
Posted by: Canucklehead | May 18, 2007 3:00 AM
"Do you think that I am going to lose a wink of sleep over that or question my beliefs or identity because you are intolerant of me? Hardly! I could only be brought to despair if I questioned them myself." Elsa That last statement is truly scary!
Posted by: Canucklehead | May 18, 2007 3:04 AM
Jon Johnston The word used in that list is the greek word: malakoi. It literally means something like "soft" and since it is in list form it is difficult to derive context for defining it adequately. Often by biblical scholars, however, it is translated as the term "catamite" which was the ancient Roman practice of a man taking a boy apprentice and raping him (like a long term child molester). So what Paul could be condemening is institutional & culturally accepted forms of pedophilia (pedastry). The only compelling biblical argument (other than Adam & Eve) that is fleshed out (and not in a list) is Romans 1, but even that becomes problematic because as anyone who has done any work on biblical hermeneutics will tell you, you can't hang your hat on ONE or even two biblical passages when creating sound doctrine.
Posted by: Erin | May 18, 2007 3:10 AM
"Funny the Rev. Falwell never preached against those guilty of the sin of gluttony...oh, that's right, you can't raise millions off THAT sin." Doreen | So very, very, perceptive, Doreen. I have hesitated to say anything in this regard but here goes (with all due respect to JF's memory and his grieving family). I had not seen JF "live" on TV for some time until about a month ago. I was shocked to see how much weight he'd put on. As my wife, who is a nurse, suggested, it may have been due to some medications he was on and I respect that. Nevertheless, can someone explain to me why funda-gelicals gather for their conferences in swanky, decadent hotels and retreat centers where enough food is served to feed sub-Sahara Africa for a month and this is perceived as "okay" even "godly" behavior? Since when and by whose/what criteria is overindulgence, overspending, overeating, overcafeining, in keeping w/ what Scripture teaches about the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit for starters? So how is it we conveniently overlook this clear Biblical teaching to pounce on some prohibition in Leviticus about sexual behavior as we wolf down our third ham sandwich of the day? I overstate to make a point. I don't get it folks - abortion, homosexuality are heinous sins according to the Bible and self-centred trough-slurping isn't? What Bible you reading?
Posted by: Canucklehead | May 18, 2007 3:11 AM
"Nevertheless, can someone explain to me why funda-gelicals gather for their conferences in swanky, decadent hotels and retreat centers where enough food is served to feed sub-Sahara Africa for a month and this is perceived as "okay" even "godly" behavior? Since when and by whose/what criteria is overindulgence, overspending, overeating, overcafeining, in keeping w/ what Scripture teaches about the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit for starters?" So true! So true!
Posted by: Erin | May 18, 2007 3:14 AM
Hey folks, did you know Freddie Phelps went to Bible School up here in Canada? He's about the only theological hero we have left now that Queen Elizabeth II is dead, so stop beating on Freddie!
Posted by: Canucklehead | May 18, 2007 3:15 AM
And in one fell swoop, Mark P completes a drive-by fruiting.
Posted by: Canucklehead | May 18, 2007 3:25 AM
God cannot love evil, therefore WE are not evil, but we many times do evil things and EXACTLY which ones of those are deal breakers for God, ONLY HE GETS TO DECIDE! So stop throwing ill-translated scripture at the argument and LOVE ONE ANOTHER! It is really very simple: go ahead give it a try!
Posted by: Kristi | May 18, 2007 3:29 AM
Ummm...QEII isn't dead, Canucklehead. Also, I wasn't quoting scripture back there, just my own reason. As well, what the deuce does Fred Phelps have to do with anything? I think you're just using him as a straw man; he is incredibly uninfluential--condemned by all. To all you who try to explain away the condemnations of homosexuality in the Bible, not trying to sound Catholic here, but the 2000-year-old tradition of the Church interprets those verses as condemnation of homosexuality; moreover, a fair exegesis would confirm this interpretation.
Posted by: Ben Wheaton | May 18, 2007 3:38 AM
Mark P, It's foolish to judge who is condemnable and by that action evil. I think I would stick to judging the acts and words of people and leaving the rest alone. Only God can judge the hearts of men. You truly are not fit. As for the one that quoted the Revelation about who will see the Kingdom or who will go to heaven I think that's kind of foolish. I mean look Moses will be in Heaven and he was a murderer, Elijah, Samuel, David, Paul were all murderers. Rahab was a whore so again I am not saying that the vision John recieved was wrong I just find the mercy of God to be greater than the judgement meted out in those verses you quoted. If that was not the case none of those people would have even made it to heaven. Sarasotakid, I am mixed on ministries like Exodus. I know what they stand for and I agree w/ their overall message of rooting out idolatry but it's not for everyone. I guess myt thing let each person decide and leave the rest to God. p
Posted by: Payshun | May 18, 2007 3:47 AM
I feel like I have to share this. I was saddened to hear of Rev. Falwell's collapse & feared he had died. I hoped if he had he would be brought back to share his realization that Jesus is and was about love, not fear. I am comforted as a Christian that he now knows that.
One sad thing I've learned since his death was that he said last year of Rep. Foley of FL & his inappropriate interest in young male pages that it wasn't as bad as Clinton's affair w/ a 20 something intern. That saddened me so much, because pedophilia is alive and well in our society & it isn't because of gays. Pediophiles have an irresistable attraction to children. It's sick and illegal. Foley is trying to hide it behind his homosexuality & his problem isn't homosexuality, it is his attraction to children. I wish I hadn't heard that story. As a Christian I'm trying really hard to have kind thoughts of him. I feel for his family, friends, church and Libery U. They have been in my thoughts and prayers. And, again, he now knows the love of Jesus. 1 John 4:18 "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love."
Posted by: Julie | May 18, 2007 4:00 AM
I am mixed on ministries like Exodus. I know what they stand for and I agree w/ their overall message of rooting out idolatry but it's not for everyone. I guess myt thing let each person decide and leave the rest to God.p Payshun
I too am mixed on it. The point that I was making was that this person found the love and support he needed in two ideologically opposed camps. Why? Because they loved him. I also think that the Exodus camp was not following the party line. That would be my guess.
Posted by: Sarasotakid | May 18, 2007 4:10 AM
From the non-evangelical Christian viewpoint, the issue of whether faith is private or public is not an issue as it is, evidently, for Sojourners. We only wish that Rev. Falwell had remained with the traditional evangelical stance that faith only has to do with saving the individual from hell because the problem with Falwell for Christians is not just that he got the issues wrong but that he got God wrong. Falwell's legacy is that much of the world sees God as mean and vindictive and discriminatory and loving only some while wanting to punish others. That is a damage to the Christian witness which will not be soon overcome. Falwell going public with a God made in the image of white, male prejudice does not contribute to getting Christians involved in the public debate on issues, it only distorts the Christian witness that could be made in such a debate.
Posted by: DML | May 18, 2007 4:15 AM
"One sad thing I've learned since his death was that he said last year of Rep. Foley of FL & his inappropriate interest in young male pages that it wasn't as bad as Clinton's affair w/ a 20 something intern." Not surprising for someone who slandered the Clintons on the Vince Foster suicide. But, hey, he was a real nice guy in private and one on one.
Posted by: Sarasotakid | May 18, 2007 4:20 AM
Before we get too erudite here and transcendentalise everything remember what the so-called "christian right" has done and I don't care whether it's democrat or republican or heinz. Remember the killing of doctors? Remember the bombings in Birmingham? Remember how many christian brainstems support bush because he was "born again" - maybe in a wheel-barrow but no where else. I remember the tely-tub disaster from Fal-well-speak-ill. The little guy with the purple hat is gay? Right? Sure, Jerry - when pigs fly. I honestly don't care anything about anyone except how they treat others in this human conundrum. You people who drop your uteruses and balls just because somebody is this way or that way are if, anything, judgementalists and that's the most common religion. Remember God did not create religion - She wouldn't have been that stupid. Man invented it and has made nothing but a mess of it, to-wit Jerry. When you marginalize any religion or class of people, which he did almost to perfection, you're not anything least of all christian - remember the crusades, the spanish inquisition, the klan, the Nazis - all good christians. None of us has any business telling anyone about the validity or morality of what they do.
Suppose Hitler had only one issue - he was gay. Would the world been better off with him gay or whatever he was? That's why I don't care about who or what you sleep with or where you live or what kind of car you drive or how much money you make or if you smell good - all that matters in this life is what you do to others. Jerry Fall-down on that one.
Posted by: john caruso | May 18, 2007 4:38 AM
"...Jesus Christ never stated one word against homosexuality." Doug, an argument from silence is not a strong one. Jesus did not mention human/animal, brother/sister, or mother/son sexual relations either. Does that silence mean they are right and good? It seems to me that we must think about the whole tenor of Jesus' teaching and consider this question: Did Jesus fail to condemn homosexual acts because He saw them as fitting in the order of God's good creation or because He regarded any sexual relations outside of the marriage covenant between woman and man a sign of disorder and failure?
Posted by: Weston | May 18, 2007 4:45 AM
I wish I had time to read every comment, and I think I will after saying this one thing. Jerry Falwell did make mistakes; in fact I agree that the right wing is sometimes too far right and does tend to say things that offends others. But Jerry Falwell definitely reached so many people in the conservative circles. I heard that there is a possibility of something like 37 thousand people coming to his funeral. Why would there be that many people? Because God used him to reach them. And I understand that he has said some things toward the gay community that they took offense at, but realize that we as Christians are the body of Christ. Everyone cannot be hands, feet, eyes, or another single member. We are all different for a purpose. Jerry Falwell was one part of the Body. Sojo is another part. We all reach different people. So keep that in mind.
Posted by: mez | May 18, 2007 5:05 AM
Hateful sentiments are not healed with hateful rebuttal.
I am still working on 'love one another.' It is a huge enough thing to work on. First things first. How deeply I can get distracted from that essential instruction, 'love one another,' by reasoned arguments and interpretations. How short a jump from there to an us-v.s.-them mentality. That fruit does not look much like Love. Been there, done that, and recently. Only to be reminded again, by Grace, that my job now is not to pull motes out of others' eyes, but to learn to love.
I must leave the mote-removing to those who have mastered the instruction to 'love one another.'
Posted by: Holly | May 18, 2007 5:13 AM
Whether or not we think that homosexuality is right or not, just as whether we think that you have to be baptized to get to heaven, or whether we think that you have to believe in a literal fire and brimstone hell to get into heaven, or whether we think that you can't drink or smoke to get into heaven....it really doesn't matter because ONLY GOD DECIDES WHO DOES AND DOES NOT GET IN folks!
If us "liberals" are willing to admit that in all likelihood a hate monger like Falwell is in heaven getting a good LOVING dressing down from God right now, why can't you reach out a hand of peace too?
Posted by: Kristi | May 18, 2007 5:18 AM
Good points, kevin s. And Jim Meisner Jr., I'm glad you'll be at TRBC. For the rest of you who are providing for my evening entertainment with your impassioned debates, you talk of loving people. Why don't you love each other? Kristi has a good point. God decides who goes to heaven. You are just his tools to point poeple toward Him.
Posted by: mez | May 18, 2007 5:28 AM
not trying to sound Catholic here, but the 2000-year-old tradition of the Church interprets those verses as condemnation of homosexuality; moreover, a fair exegesis would confirm this interpretation. Ben Wheaton I'm not trying to sound anti-Catholic here, but I look at the 2000 year history of "the" church and don't have much respect for "the" church just based on past performance!
Posted by: butch | May 18, 2007 6:25 AM
it seems to me that the Rev. Mel White summed up a great deal in his remark, "Even when we belive the scritpures are 'infallible' or 'without error,' it is terribly dangerous to think that our understanding of every bibliical text is without error." For all who insist that scripture is "perfectly clear" in condemning homosexuality,perhaps it is time to remember that we are all fallible and that Jesus said, "Judge not that ye be not judged." My daily prayer is that i will find the will to not judge those who judge others. The Rev. Falwell, along with countless others over the centuries presumed that his interpretation of scritpure was infallible - leading to further splitting and dismemberment of the body of Christ...leading to heinous crimes against innocent people like Matthew Shepherd...leading to the teaching of hatered and bigotry to our children... is that what Jesus Christ went to the cross for? God have mercy upon us all
Posted by: Johanna | May 18, 2007 6:27 AM
"...not trying to sound Catholic here, but the 2000-year-old tradition of the Church interprets those verses as condemnation of homosexuality; moreover, a fair exegesis would confirm this interpretation." Ben - I don't discount Catholics at all, personally. Catholicism is the protestant heritage and we have much to learn from that past. However, since the NT came together (it hasn't been 2,000 years) they also have condemned women in pastoral leadership of the church based on what they concluded as "fair exegesis" and their tradition. AND I (and others) think they are WRONG. You can be wrong for many years with many men all agreeing... and still be WRONG!
Posted by: Erin | May 18, 2007 6:47 AM
Part of the problem with Falwell's homophobia is that he was using an English translation of the original Bible that was less than accurate. The actual Bible never referred to "homosexuality," and, especially for the literalists, never even suggested that there was anything wrong with being a lesbian. It could also be interpreted that only anal intercourse was prohibited and being gay was otherwise ok. On many message boards we see the right wing neocons bent out of shape because everyone else is rejoicing that Falwell is no longer able to spew forth his hate. They wonder how a Christian can be so joyful at the death of another being. I agree, and I submit that Falwell's joy at the death of over 3,000 people on 9/11 who got what they deserved because they supported a decadent culture of ACLU, feminists, gays, prochoice, nonfundamentalists, etc. is a strong indication that the man was never a Christian. And I have grave doubts about those who follow in his footsteps. The fundies have never explained to my satisfaction the contradiction between a personal god and a god that would kill over 3,000 people as an example of collective punishment.
Posted by: dan | May 18, 2007 6:52 AM
Here is a page that you should visit to see just how involved in Christianity Falwell really was, and what it was that motivated him. The fact that Falwell's god hated all the things that Falwell did make it difficult to take his religion seriously. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/17/1259/
Posted by: dan | May 18, 2007 7:14 AM
I hardly think that Falwell was joyful at the deaths from 9/11 though he did use them in a most heinous fashion to strike fear into the hearts of those he wished to vilify. Please lets refrain from hyperbole in voicing our opinions about the actions of those that we disagree with.
I know a large number of very conservative evangelicals, and I can tell you that on this point, most do not agree with Mr. Falwell. Simply because the loud and obnoxious with microphones do, doesn't mean everyone does.
And another thing---do you mean by fundies, those that fund Republican candidates, the Moral Majority or what? Because again not all of those people agree that 3000 people DESERVED to die.
Posted by: Kristi | May 18, 2007 7:25 AM
"Charlotte, you speak of Church leadership as if it s a privilege or a status symbol or a completion of spiritual life instead of the burden, the scary scary burden that it s generally portrayed as in Scripture Let not many of you become teachers and all." I'm sure it's a discussion for another time, but I do find fault in the Christian understanding of church leadership as a career path. Separating church leadership from scriptural qualification is a product of American consumerism. We simply MUST see a pastor as the CEO. Bologna. We are not entitled to anything. God calls pastors.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 18, 2007 7:50 AM
"For all who insist that scripture is "perfectly clear" in condemning homosexuality,perhaps it is time to remember that we are all fallible and that Jesus said, "Judge not that ye be not judged."" This could be used to discount any biblical passage, including those that reference the existence of Jesus. I am fallible, but there are things I am fully capable of doing. God did not intend his scripture to be some sort of cosmic rubik's cube. His word was meant for all of us.
And yeah, the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, whether I am fallible or not.