Rushed Thoughts on Falwell

This afternoon I found out that Reverend Jerry Falwell passed away unexpectedly. I realize that such a person as he will have already received much attention on blogs far better than mine, and messageboards, as well. Still, I cannot help but think about some of his legacy, namely what he did better than his predecessors, who tried to mobilize Christians into a political force.

A few things that stick out in my mind and this is coming from someone whose Falwell material comes mostly from The New Right: We’re Ready To Lead, which was written in the late 70s, and TV/radio bits and pieces I’ve caught. First of all, Falwell’s success was his ability to mobilize Christians to an actual voting bloc. This, I think, is his primary legacy. I realize that some credit Francis Schaeffer, possibly, as having been one who got the ball rolling, but Schaeffer did not inject himself into the American political conversation the way Falwell did. Falwell was successful at raising money, finding the right media outlets and marrying a “voting block” to a political party. Before the early 1980s, Christians were not an identifiable voting block. There had been attempts, but nothing like what happened in the late 70s/early 80s. Because of good organization, a populist message, and optimism; white, Evangelicals become a force to be reckoned with. The use of family values type messages, combined with an economic agenda that went beyond where others such as Carl McIntire, J. Frank Norris and others had attempted.

Like many good Fundamentalist/Evangelical political leaders before him, Falwell also had his hand in education. Liberty University went further than, say, Bob Jones University, Pensacola Christian College, or others. Instead of being completely isolated from the culture at large, Falwell created an educational institution for the purpose of injecting Evangelicals into business, politics, law, and other places. Before this, 20th Century “Christian colleges” primarily began to train pastors in a particular brand of Fundamentalism or Evangelicalism (I realize there are some exceptions). Liberty even joined NCAA Division I athletics and is known for its debate team, which does not solely interact with Christian institutions. In my opinion, Falwell had a greater vision than many before him in this area.

Lastly, Falwell was more optimistic than his predecessors. Most of my knowledge of Christian leaders who attempted to influence the political thought of Christians comes from the 1930s, so I will use a brief comparison to show my point. Leaders in the 1930s, such as J. Frank Norris, Carl McIntire, or John R. Rice made attempts to influence the political process of their day. The key problem I believe, after reading thousands of editorials and articles, is they framed their battles in pessimism. They tried to rally their readers around the fact that they were losing battles and that they may not win. The little reading I have done of Falwell from the “earlier” days, seems to have an optimistic vein running through it. Instead of using defeated language, or apocalyptic musings, Falwell led his followers to believe they could “take America back” and rallied them, not so much around theology, but political ideology. This gave him a greater audience. Falwell was a Baptist, but could reach out to Presbyterians, Pentecostals, and other Fundamentalist/Evangelicals that people before him could not reach. He instilled hope into the “culture war” and did not come at his audience with a message of defeat, but of victory. Falwell’s optimism was probably a key in his wider audience and following than others before him. It was also an edge that made him into a leader, helped him found his Moral Majority and gave him the notoriety and historical impact that will likely continue for years to come.