Jerry Falwell: "This man's no fool..."

(Tim) I'm sure I'm not alone in being content to love Jerry Falwell from a distance, Baptist fundamentalist that he was. So I was rebuked by this anecdote from the latest First Things and I repent. What a man.

Richard John Neuhaus writes:

William Willimon, former chaplain at Duke and now a United Methodist bishop, tells about the time he invited Jerry Falwell to speak. He did it on a dare, not expecting Falwell to accept. But Falwell showed up with bells on, so to speak. The Lesbian-Bisexual- Transgendered Alliance demanded Willimon be fired for inviting a man infamous for his "closed-minded, racist, homophobic, self-righteous, incendiary rhetoric." On the appointed evening, the student crowd was baited for bear. One of the first questions was...

"How many African Americans do you have at your Liberty University?"

"Young lady," said Falwell, "you could not have asked a question that hurts me more deeply." He went on about how hard he had worked over the years to recruit minority students and how he regularly discussed the matter with Coretta Scott King. "She told me not to be so consumed with this problem. But I can't help myself." He finally allowed that only 12 percent of the students at Liberty are African Americans.

Then he asked, "Do you know, by the way, how many African Americans are enrolled at Duke?"

No response.

Falwell said, "I'll tell you. Six percent. Six percent! Your endowment is 50 times bigger than ours. You have had years to work on this issue (though admittedly you spent half of your fife as a racially segregated school). In fact, I struggled with whether the Lord wanted me to come here tonight to a school that, though you have been given great gifts, has such a poor record of minority enrollment. I pray that you will let the Lord help you do better in this area."

Willimon writes of the students, "They were putty in this Baptist's hands. When Jerry finally finished his avuncular banter, he received a warm ovation. 'This man's no fool,' I thought to myself."

Comments

[Mark Priestap]

Willimon is a stud. This is great to hear about Falwell... if only he would have laid off of free-will-ism.

[Joel]

"... if only he would have laid off of free-will-ism."

Did he have any choice? :)

[Archie]

Joel,

LOL. I get it.

[Mark Priestap]

LOL

[Robert Perry]

Oh, delightful; I wish that I had seen this before, and not merely kept Falwell's work at an arm's length while this great servant yet lived.

[K. Darrell]

Unfortunately it is hip among the younger folk to sell this man out. Yes, he is a baptist and a fundamentalist, but he sure was a good man. Did anyone see the CNN special on the "Big 3" religions? They interviewed him for a bit and he came off quite warm and inviting. He even told a funny joke and his ending was great.

He said, "I heard this story of a service man coming back from Iraq and Chelsea Clinton asked him, 'Were you scared? What was your greatest fear?' The only things I fear are Osama, Obama, and yo' mama." Falwell added, "Now, I don't know if that is true, but that's what I heard", in a smirking, "I know it ain't true sort of way". Most of the reports of those who met the man, including NPR and other media outlets, gave a good report. Unfortunately, many within the church are content on giving him a bad one.

[Robert Perry]

The really sad thing is that I'm a fundamental Baptist as well, but didn't clue in to the good he was doing. Yikes--fratricide, huh?

[Brady]

The man did also attribute 9/11 to the fact that America has gays, abortionists, feminists, and pagans.

To my knowledge, not everyone who died in that attack was a gay, abortionist, feminist, or pagan.

Sure he made some witty comment at Duke, but he also made lots of non-witty, and just playing wrong statements that only served to alienate those most in need of Christ.

[Keith G]

He apologized, also:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/

[Tim Bayly]

Not everyone in Sodom was a rapacious sodomite, either.

[David L.]

"Yes, he is a baptist and a fundamentalist, but he sure was a good man."

Gosh, who would have guessed the two were mutually exclusive? Maybe only liberal Baptists, or fundamentalist Presbyterians, can be good men now.

Brady,

Does God still judge nations today for their wickedness? Or just individuals only?

[Robert W.]

"Gosh, who would have guessed..."

Just this past Sunday morning I made a public apology to my congregation and asked forgiveness for using that "G" word the previous Sunday evening while extemporizing in a sermon.

Google "minced oaths" and the first eight entries will be enlightening. I have not been vigilant with my tongue and am now on a mission to change. I have asked the three elders with whom I meet every week to signal me anytime I use a minced oath/euphemism for anything holy, sacred, or theologically serious that should not be mocked, God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, hell, damnation, etc.

The following verses were at the head of one of the entries:

"Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD,my strength, and my redeemer" (Psalm 19:14)
"A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned" (Matthew 12:35-37)
"Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?" (James 3:10-11)
"Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers" (Ephesians 4:29)

As one under the sharpening iron of a brother, I invite all of us to consider our tongues and pens and keyboards. And may God alone be glorified in all we say and do.

[Brady]

>Does God still judge nations today for their wickedness? Or just individuals only?

In the case of Sodom, he judged the entire nation because there were not even 10 left who feared God.

So He was judging a nation, but because there were hardly any untainted individuals.

Some think the USA is in bad shape, but even on this blog there are at least 10 people who are seeking God's truth, much less in this nation.

[Keith G]

Like I said, he apologized, but throughout scripture individual punishment for individual sins is the exception, not the rule. Just look at Adam, for starters.

[David]

Falwell's affront was the fact he was one of the last of dying breed. He was willing to be counted a fool for Christ. Those who hate the gospel had a grater reason for hating him. He was unashamed to proclaim John 14:6 as an absolute truth.

For us who are believers maybe our shame of Jerry Falwell is the fact we are not as bold for Christ as he was. Maybe he made us feel uncomfortable in our comfort.

[Brady]

Of course it is possible that he was just deluded and made stuff up.

"so-called gay folks would just as soon kill you as look at you." -- Falwell (Washington Post)(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/18/AR2007051801392.html)

Seriously, regardless of how much you hate "sodomites," just making up random information to incite hate is immoral. I do not care how bold you are for the "gospel" (the quotes indicate my disagreement with Falwell's take on gospel). Alienating those who need most the grace of God by making up data is morally reprehensible. It is serving as an instrument of their destruction.

My shame of Falwell is that he made it difficult for me to explain to homosexuals that Christ actually does love them, wants to save them, and that most Christians do not think "many of [the gays] are after my children and your children," (same article as above).

bpr

[Brady]

Sorry, that link did not work right. Here it is again:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/18/AR2007051801392.html

[David L.]

Brady,

Can you specify what exactly Falwell's "take" on the Gospel is that you don't agree with? Thanks.

[Brady]

I just meant that using one's platform as a spiritual leader to preach hate is an abuse of that power.

I obviously will not convince many in this blog that openly preaching condemnation towards homosexuals is a bad idea (not condoning homosexuality, just saying that maybe there are more tactful ways to approach the subject that would be more convincing).

However, I hope some of you agree that using the power of spiritual leadership to promote made-up facts is an abuse of the position.

[Keith G]

People who struggle with homosexuality, just like the rest of us, need to be confronted with their sin. I think being "seeker-sensitive" or whatever more often becomes an excuse to not share the gospel.

My wife and I were talking about this today, about how so often we want to coddle non-Christians with such delicacy that they end up not even knowing we're there or what we believe. The end effect is the same as ignoring them altogether.

Be bold with your gay friends. It's something I struggle with too as I try to be bold with my atheist co-workers rather than trying to be their buddy. That is much more loving than pretending you agree with them.

[Brady]

Keith,
I agree that many Christians use that very excuse for not being bold with the gospel. It seems that we use many excuses for not doing what we should.

I guess what I am trying to say is that Christ dined with "sinners," and as far as I can tell from the scriptures, won them over by demonstrating perfect love, not by saying "repent you tax collectors and prostitutes." Even in the case of the woman caught in adultery, first Christ showed love, drawing the woman to Him. THEN He told her to go and sin no more. In repentance many of those living lives of sin became witnesses of Christ's irresistible call.

There is a balance between direct confrontation with the Word of God and knowing how to meet people destitute in sin. To some extent we are responsible to use our gifts for strategic ministry. Not using my God-given gifts would be like trying to plow a field by hand when I have a combine in the barn.

[Mary]

Brady, using a combine to plow a field wouldn't be any more effective than doing it by hand. In fact, you'd get more plowing done using your bare hands since a combine is used for harvesting not planting. :) Sorry, Tim and David, this wasn't about the topic presented but I have to help educate the urban masses.

[Brady]

Hey Mary,
haha, thanks. You're right, I'm born and raised a city slicker.

[Kamilla]

Ha, I knew that, Marry! I may be a city girl, but I did work a summer or two on my aunt and uncle's farm, hehehe. Still miss that springwater pool we used to get our drinks from in the milk house!

Kamilla

[Rachel Pierson]

The Plow vs the Combine discussion is very useful, though.

How do we present ourselves? What tools do we use for evangelism? When are we Elijah on the wall blowing the trumpet, and when are we Jesus at the well (so to speak)?

Will God grow fruit if we sow the seed with a combine?

I want answers. Yesterday!