Let the Lionizing and Skewering and Caricaturing Begin

Falwell is dead. The hot, well-informed hairdresser wife called me to tell me today. I was a little stunned. I know that at 73 death was a very real possibility at any point, but I've grown up with Falwell defining and embodying the right side of the Christian spectrum. It is arresting to consider religion in the U.S. without him. CNN started airing excerpts from Christiana Amanpour's interview with Falwell that was originally going to be part of a special news report. Now that Falwell has died, it appears this is the last major interview he ever did. Before cutting to the interview, CNN talked to a spokesperson from Falwell's ministry who described him as a man who preached the word of God and the love of God across the spectrum. Umm...yeah...not so much.

Falwell typified the sectarian Protestant ethos in U.S. Christian fundamentalism. Always convinced that his understanding of the phrases "word of God" and "love of God" was the correct one, Falwell was quick to eliminate billions from the grace of God. In his last interview with Amanpour he insisted that he stood by his post-9/11 statements about God removing his "shield of protection" from America because of the sins of homosexuality, abortion, and redefining the family. America would suffer the judgment of God for these corporate sins, but not, mind you, for the previous sins of slavery, segregation, patriarchalism, racism, bigotry, triumphalism, arrogance, nation tampering, assassination, nuclear proliferation, consumerism, etc. Nope. Those weren't sins, and we know that because God had his shield of protection around us while we practiced those things.

This triumphalist streak in fundamentalism is what is most disturbing because it won't allow for an uneasy truce. It demands the Christianization of government, culture, science, school, history, economics, and the arts. The lessons of Constantine aren't sufficient for this type of American fundamentalism. While caricaturing the Catholic Church as ignorant of the doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura, American fundamentalism as embodied by Falwell is practicing the same sort of Constantinianism that led to the extremes of the Roman Church's authority and abuse. While fundangelicals mock secularists and liberals for predicting theocracy, they rewrite U.S. and church history to make the narratives more amenable to their theocratic tendencies.

I know, it sounds alarmist and apocalyptic and all that, but the death of Falwell will be one of the major stories of the year (decade) in religion because he was one of the architects of the fundamentalist resurgence in American churches and in American politics. His mark is on the so-called culture wars and he helped frame much of the alarmist rhetoric and utterly stupid notions of Christians in America as a persecuted minority. His cries of victimization and his intransigence have twisted the national debate beyond the limits of salvage and have given permission to millions of fundangelicals to feel like they are living in an increasingly secular world run by godless liberals. At the same time, they fail to recognize that the homicidal impulses that drive militant, fundamentalist Islam have been present in their churches from the beginning of the fourth century.

If there is an epitaph for Falwell it would be, "He left the state of the debate far worse than he found it." Still, the man accomplished much, and it would be dishonest to fail to mention the many shelters, crisis centers and homes for single mothers his ministry provided. Enigmatic, bombastic, and hateful to his core, he still occasionally caught a vision of what Christianity could be. Alas, it was tied up in the whole Protestant fundangelical bloody Jesus God will send 'em to hell kind of Christianity. With his death, we can hope that a kinder voice emerges, but I won't be holding my breath.

Comments

[emergentninja]

I thought the title would be something close to "ding, dong the...," (too soon)? I know when people die there will always be people saddened by the lost. However, I hope that those who felt that they had to align themselves w/ Falwell and those of his ilk might find a more moderate voice. Someone that polarizing is in my opinion, dangerous. I do hope peace and comfort for his family and friends, but this might lead to some sort of a healing of the rift that this man created.

[emergentninja]

I thought the title would be something close to "ding, dong the...," (too soon)? I know when people die there will always be people saddened by the lost. However, I hope that those who felt that they had to align themselves w/ Falwell and those of his ilk might find a more moderate voice. Someone that polarizing is in my opinion, dangerous. I do hope peace and comfort for his family and friends, but this might lead to some sort of a healing of the rift that this man created.

[emergentninja]

sorry for repeated post.

[bobstevens]

I always confused crazy statements made by Falwell and Robertson. While there's very real reason to believe that Robertson is some sort of con-artist, Falwell was pretty clearly sincere about his chosen beliefs and (correct me if I'm wrong) conducted his personal life in a manner that was "above reproach", other than all the obvious press blurbs about him hating gays.

I don't think there will be a single worthwhile commentary on the man's life in the mainstream media for at least 3 years, but he certainly did change the landscape of things. Random death of people I've never met tend to hit me hard, because it means that for a second I can't ignore how wounded I am by the very concept of eternity. But I'm very honestly sad about Falwell's passing.

[bobstevens]

And greg,

While I realize that World Net Daily is about the worst source on the Internet for any real, serious news, but I assume they can get direct quotes right. So this article about Christopher Hitchens's response to Falwell's death (link)... leads me to one conclusion:

Christopher Hitchens is an ass.

I'm honestly very skeptical that he could put together a book that's worth spending any time on, yet you said it was "funny and insightful". I'm confused.

[dr dobson]

Maybe Hagee and Osteen can dedicate at least one of their video screens this Sunday as a "Falwell Farewell"--that would be nice.

Or, maybe TBN could enter a "Falwell Float" in this year's Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade" as an homage--it wouldn't need to be that much bigger than his jowls got near the end.

[Dallas Tim]

It's funny how hateful you can be (Hitchens) while trying to point out another's shortcomings. For Hitchens to take that much time voicing his wishes for Falwell's punishment, torture and agony only reveals the truth behind any of what he says.

Those of Hitchens' ilk are not simply voicing their puzzlement at why someone would consider believing in God, instead they seethe with hatred, and that hatred is, more than anything, the core of who they are and why hold the views that they hold.

[Jason]

Hitchens is something of a blowhard as well, but when he's on, he's on. His comment that no media would give someone who said the horrible things Falwell said the time of day if not for the "Rev." before his name is dead-on.

Still, Hitch and I will have to part company in that I wish neither Falwell's conception of hell or even death itself on anyone. (Also, any cheerleader and to-this-day apologist of the Iraq war who says that "Lots of people are going to die and are already leading miserable lives because of the nonsense preached by this man" has serious issues with projection.)

[Dallas Tim]

The comment about "Rev." by Hitchens is, in my opinion, incorrect. Falwell was quoted because he was a nationally recognized figure. If some local, no-name "rev." had made similar comments, they would not have been cited even if they were members of the clergy. And, had another nationally recognized person made the same comments, they would have likely been quoted. True, Falwell became nationally recognized due to his religious adherence (right or wrong), but to say that he was quoted simply on the basis of the 3 letters and a period before his name is not correct.

There were other "Rev.s" running around decrying segregation in the 60's, yet the one in the spotlight was MLK Jr. (whose eldest daughter also passed away today). He was such not just because he was a preacher, but becasue he embodied the movement.

[greg]

Hitchens is an ass. Yes. He's also risked his life more than once getting a story. I'm not sure why DT thinks he's seething with hatred though. He's simply asking for the application of the principle which fundangelicals preach every day. If it's hateful for Hitchens to wish Fallwell his own oft-preached version of hell, then it would follow that God is hateful for creating such a place and then consigning peopl to it. Then again, in the fundangelical realm, he's God so he can do what he wants and never an ethical critique need be applied. It's this sort of hypocrisy that Hitchens skewers so well.

[Dallas Tim]

But it's Hitchen's personal request that Falwell go to the place that Hitchens denies (unless it could just once exist for Falwell) that is the ultimate hypocrisy.

He is guilty of being the very thing that he accuses Falwell of being.

[Joe]

I am sure when Falwell entered the presence of God, God straighten out his theology but if God is mercy and grace I am sure God welcomed him without question or comment.

[greg]

Tim,

I'm not sure how it's hypocrisy on Hitchens's part to wish on Falwell the fate he wished on so many others, especially since Hitchens doesn't actually believe in such a place. He's using hyperbole to make an excellent point about the sort of poisonous drivel Falwell spewed. It seems consistent to me, and I'm not sure what "ultimate hypocrisy" is. Is there a penultimate hypocrisy?

[Phil]

Re: "...sure God welcomed him w/o quesiton or comment."

I had to chuckle at the thought of that. I can only imagine God's response when I show up at the door.

"Phil, get'cher ass in here before I change my mind..."

[starfan21]

greg: "I'm not sure how it's hypocrisy on Hitchens's part to wish on Falwell the fate he wished on so many others..."

I actually used to read your site for though-provoking dialogue. However, the more I read, the more I realize how thought-provoking it isn't. Oh, it's fun...to debate, that is (the whole mudwrestling with pigs things). But, the more you say, the more you come off as a jaded and bitter cynic...pessimist...pick a synonym. But, that's just how you strike me which, with $4.50, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbuck's.

Can you cite verifiable source that Falwell ever "wished" hell on anyone? There is much about him with which I disagree (tactically, theologically, or otherwise), but I am very confident that you'll not find a source for such a reckless statement. But, of course, what's good for Falwell, is good for you.

[Dallas Tim]

Greg,

My point was that Hitchens claims to, just this once, wish that hell actually existed exclusively for Falwell. He even says it's a pity that hell doesn't exist JUST for Falwell.
Because Falwell was mean? Hateful?

Even Larry Flynt said that though he and Jerry were on definitively opposite ends of the spectrum, he considered Jerry a friend because Falwell truly cared for him and was sincere.

It is Hitchens who is being hateful and vindictive.

[greg]

Starfan,

You're welcome to leave at any time. You might check out what Jerry has said about homosexuals over the years, including their participation in a vile, Satanic system that will be annihilated thereby causing celebration in Heaven. It's possible that he didn't mean the homosexuals would be annihilated, but this is the same guy that believes hell is a real place where real people spend a real eternity. Ahh..the love of God.

[Leighton]

Falwell struck me as a sort of Martin Luther figure--widely influential, very certain of his convictions, and possessed of a directness that most co-lingual readers interpret as hatred toward those who are not persuaded by his rhetoric (Luther's target late in life was Jews where Falwell seemed to shoot a little more widely).

I've come to appreciate Luther's views on the art of brewing. I can only hope that someday I'll also find something to like about Falwell.

[bobstevens]

Good point greg, if Hitchens is an ass, there's a very real possibility that Falwell is an ass as well. But Falwell can neither defend himself nor change himself at this point, so targeting him seems to be in poor taste.

But I didn't mean to derail the topic of conversation as much as I appear to have. Hitchens doesn't seem worth the time to me... most foaming-at-the-mouth atheists don't for that matter. (Feel free to insert your favorite -ist into that previous sentence.)

[Jason]

Bob: But Falwell can neither defend himself nor change himself at this point, so targeting him seems to be in poor taste.

Probably, but kicking round dead people is kind of his schtick. Apparently he was invited to the Vatican to literally be the Devil's Advocate during their deliberations on Mother Teresa's beatification.

[Kevin Powell]

Hitchens has this bizarre distaste for religion, that, to me, strangely selective. He seems to see history and culture in a secular vacuum, forgetting that much of western culture rose from religious expressions.

kgp

[greg]

Jason,

Hitchens went to fill the role of devil's advocate that was largely ignored during the papacy of JPII. This was primarily because JPII was on a mission to canonize as many people as possible.

Hitchens addresses the "trial" in the latest book, and I understand and agree with his role in the process. The Catholic Church has always insisted on proof of miracles to authenticate the sainthood of a candidate. Hitchens found problems with the claims of miracles attributed to Mother Teresa. In that capacity he would be required to be honest about the discrepancies in the account. This is not to say that Hitchens thought she wasn't a nice lady or remarkable person, although he has said some unkind things about her. But I believe that the process of verification ought to be taken seriously and Hitchens took his task seriously. I don't fault him for that. I highly recommend the Slate article by Hitchens about the whole issue here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/

[Jason]

greg -

I didn't mean to give the impression that I had a problem with Hitch's role at the Vatican, which I think is vital, and I'm glad that someone would fulfill it. (Not knowing much about the modern canonization process, I'm surprised to hear it was abandoned.) I also think that many of his criticisms of Teresa are quite well founded but largely ignored.

[starfan21]

Anyone believing Hitchens to be a reliable source for anything is making the same mistake he accuses those in his profession of making: being lazy and accepting him on reputation as opposed to merit.

On a side note: Hitchens doesn't square well with the idea that being an atheist is a simply neutral affair with no care one way or the other. In one interview, Hitchens stated:

"I'm an atheist. I'm not neutral about religion, I'm hostile to it. I think it is a positively bad idea, not just a false one. And I mean not just organized religion, but religious belief itself."

Perhaps that note would have been better suited for the recent "atheism" thread, but the two topics were intertwined.

[greg]

Hitchens certainly qualifies as a hard atheist, a position I also believe falls into the faith realm. However, his militant form of atheism is not really the norm.

I find it funny that many here are critiquing his thoroughness and his arguments without actually reading the book though.

[sepherim]

I'm with Leighton.