Apologizing to Jerry Falwell

By Dave Crater (crater@wilberforcecenter.org) The passing of the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, someone at whom many of the glitterati and literati even among ostensible conservatives still love to scoff, has, as passings often do, led many others (myself included) to engage in some real soul-searching concerning what this man was about and what we all should learn from him and his legacy. Consider this more a confession than an argument.

I’m ashamed to say – and this is my confession – that I once unthinkingly accepted much of the common claptrap about Rev. Falwell. I heard it so often, and from members of the glitterati and literati who were so well educated and well placed and well dressed that they couldn’t possibly be misguided, that I assumed it was at least partially true:

Not intellectually respectable; prone to saying stupid things in public; representative of everything wrong with Christian America; front man for how silly and hopeless fundamentalist America is, and how autocratically governed by slightly-overweight white males it is; impediment to real Christian influence and respectability in the American public square; etc, etc.

This same claptrap is repeated all the time even by people claiming to be followers of Christ – and insinuated by still more who offer the lame but perfunctory “I didn’t always agree with him” qualifiers as they eulogize Falwell in public statements – but who, if they are indeed Christians, I began some time ago to suspect are at least less familiar with Christ’s actual life and teaching, and certainly less willing to bear Christ’s cross, than Rev. Falwell was.

For some strange reason this uneducated fundamentalist hillbilly’s legacy includes a 22,000-member evangelical church that he started in a basement, a major evangelical university and law school, and a national Christian activist infrastructure that was a major force in American politics for the decade he was leading it, but which has dwindled to much less since he left. For anyone else, this kind of organizational and influential legacy would be the very definition of respectable worldly success.

Imagine, for example, the glowing reports from the glitterati and literati we would be seeing if Barack Obama had started and led for decades a 22,000-member center-left church, founded a center-left university and center-left law school the size of Liberty University, or developed a center-left national grassroots network the size of the Moral Majority/Christian Coalition. The choruses of anointed hallelujahs out of Washington, New York, and Hollywood, and the star-power in attendance at his funeral, would ring for years.

Imagine, in turn, the soothing flatteries you would whisper to yourself if your own life had resulted in even a small portion of these accomplishments – albeit center-right and respectable accomplishments, not too right and certainly not too evangelical. For Rev. Falwell, this enormous legacy seems to be most prominent when it provides the visible, obvious evidence why we don’t want to be like him or even give the appearance of being like him, or, if we can help it, be involved with anything he created. That lawyer is a Liberty University grad? Well (snicker), I guess we know how that case will turn out.

I have spent many hours pondering this paradoxical curiosity since Falwell died. In hindsight, I think this visceral, nameless dislike resulted from Falwell’s unflinching, fearless adherence to a robust, worldview-sized faith that transcended right and left, entering irrecoverably and inevitably-controversially the ancient realm of right and wrong. You know, good and evil, angels and demons, and all that.

I further think the fact that the visceral, nameless dislike was and is so widespread among so many says more about the many than it does about the man. Certainly I confess it said more about me when I believed it than it did about him. Now I think it well illuminates the Apostle’s lament that the spiritual man judges all things rightly while he himself is judged rightly by no one (I Cor. 2:15).

So I say publicly and sincerely to all of you my witnesses – lest I allow too much time to pass between Rev. Falwell’s death and my confession and repentance regarding what I once thoughtlessly and sinfully believed about him – that I have asked God’s forgiveness and prayed He would be so clement and gracious as to raise up a few more heroes with the understanding, courage, and faith of Rev. Falwell, to sustain them against all the vitriol and ignorant hatred we will hurl at them in our pursuit of intellectual, social, and political respectability and success, and, just as a crowning, excessive grace, to also raise up a few stalwarts with the deep and spiritual kind of wisdom to ignore the vain, foolish praise and criticism of men and to instead judge these heroes rightly while they are yet alive on the earth.

An ambitious prayer, I know. But I still believe in miracles. Thank you for taking the time to witness my confession.

What's meant by 'rendering to Caesar'?

I’ve been struck by two thoughts lately, one thought expands on my April 1 post concerning the political leanings of Jesus, the second asks to what extent faith and politics can or cannot accompany each other. It may not be fashionable to say, but it is certainly true; you can legislate morality. In fact I'd actually contend that every law adopted from seat-belt laws to smoking bans to insurance mandates is morality codified, heck the most morally telling law we pass is the budget – “where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:21). When I say that we can legislate morality, and then I give the examples above, I am not talking about philosophical morality but rather, I mean that we can "impose by law our moral code on others and make them behave as we expect." It is far more difficult, maybe impossible, to use the force of law to compel the conscience of someone else to believe as we do. Society creates and encourages behavior it deems moral precisely through the force of law, but we cannot – and do not expect our laws to change the heart of another person. We can stop a man from murder, but we cannot stop a man from thinking murderous thoughts.

From birth through death we are constantly searching for who we are, and our individual identity - how we see ourselves - is closely tied to who we are in community and how we live our lives in relation to others. Our relationships with each other and with the greater community around us shape who we are and how we see ourselves. How we choose to be involved in the lives around us often defines us not only in the eyes of others, for a man is known to those around him by his actions, but also defines us to ourselves, for who but God knows our hearts and minds as well as we do. In other words, how I see myself is determined by what I do.

So what about political involvement? As an individual in relationship to Christ as well as to one’s fellow man, politics would seem a natural extension of living in a community. For Christians, there is some good in being politically involved, but that is not the good, or even the key ground to fight over in this world. What is Good is to live lives that draw others to Christ - and draw ourselves ever closer at the same time. Some good comes from politics and social action, and from pursuing and advocating for policies that strengthen the moral fabric of society - the founding ethics of biblical Christianity and Judaism.

To live Christianly, to have my actions truly reflect my heart, must lead to some difference in our world, some "rendering unto Caesar.” It's important to create laws that protect the innocent and punish the guilty, it is important to vote, and to use our God-given freedom to create a country that seeks liberty and justice, a country that loves and encourages what is right and true. But more than working to affect the country, Christians must realize that it is when Christians seek to act like Christ that they most inspire their community. It is the heart that influences one to follow laws, though laws will always be necessary.

I guess my point is that people don't find that out by simply following laws.

A feminized America is easy prey for the Chos and the Islamofascists

By Dave Petteys (dpetteys@comcast.net) When a single mom sends her 12 year old son off to Middle School, often times she will instruct him “don’t hit!” which basically ties his hands in defending himself. The boy becomes a target for the school bullies, and his life becomes miserable owing to the intimidation. The mom’s response usually is to wring her hands and complain ineffectually to school officials or to move the boy to another school, where the pattern is repeated.

A father, on the other hand, will encourage his son to defend himself. He will get him boxing or karate lessons, which gives the boy confidence and some options. Then, at the next confrontation, the bully gets knocked on his butt, ending the problem. Bullies concentrate on those who don’t defend themselves. But mom will still object, saying such a response is “stooping to the bully’s level!”

Our traditions were founded by tough frontier families who carved lives out of the primeval forests of North America. The musket over the mantle, powder horns and tomahawks were a necessity of life. The call to muster to defend homes and families against raiding parties was all too frequent for the men of those times. The women understood, appreciated and supported them. This doesn’t seem to be true today.

Modern America hasn’t seen major bloodshed on its soil since the Civil War. Even the attack of 9-11 seems to have sunk from memory, becoming nothing more than a forgotten TV event of sorts. To the modern woman, the idea of the frontiersman husband that defends his family is laughable. Masculine strength and courage are no longer necessary. And if there is a man in a woman’s life at all, it could only be a partnership with a “sensitive new-age guy” that will give her space. And if strength and courage are no longer necessary, neither are firearms.

Gun control is the national equivalent of “don’t hit”. It assumes everyone abides in a feminine rational relational point of view. The problem is, not everyone does, and that seems to be hard for the feminine viewpoint to accept. Theo Van Gogh’s last words to his Radical Islamist murderer were “Can’t we talk about this?” Evidently not. And it’s painfully clear how Radical Islam treats their women! The VA Tech shooter Cho Seung-Hui didn’t want to discuss things either. Had any teacher presented herself to reason with him, she would have received a 9mm beauty spot between her running lights.

As the threat of radical Islam grows, and as the VA Tech media attention encourages “copy cat massacres” elsewhere, it may be time to realize America still may need masculine qualities of courage and strength, as well as the modern equivalent of the musket over the fireplace, to survive.

Mesmeric power of 'white racism'

A black American reflects on the Imus affair By Joseph C. Phillips (joseph@josephcphillips.com)

When I was a boy, my father charged me with cleaning up a mess in the bathroom. Thoroughly disgusted, I tried every way I knew how to avoid touching anything. The delay angered my father until finally in exasperation, he hollered, “You are going to touch much worse than that in your life!” He was correct. I have in my life touched much worse. The lesson learned was in all things we must keep our perspective.

Following an off-color joke about the Rutgers women’s basketball team that fell terribly flat, radio host Don Imus was fired from his program at MSNBC and a short time later was also released from his contract with CBS radio. One need not like Don Imus or approve of what he said in order to wonder if perhaps the punishment and the accompanying hysteria didn’t exceed the crime. On the other hand, we are living in a nation whose moral equilibrium has been turned topsy-turvy. And the culprit is not hip hop music or the hypocrisy of the post civil rights establishment. The moral offense that supersedes all other considerations is white racism and the guilt and victimhood that accompany it.

A woman in Seattle is caught on video tape in a drunken, profanity laced tirade in which she calls an Arab convenience store clerk “un-American” and “Gandhi.” She then grabs him by the throat committing a battery. Once sober and facing charges, she releases a statement assuring the witnessing public that she is not a racist. No matter that she is a sloppy drunk, with a mouth like a sailor and a batterer, she must make it clear that she is not a racist.

A sitting United States senator must defend himself against charges that 20 years ago he used the N word. Imus hasn’t changed his act in 15 years. For Leslie Moonves, CBS CEO, to feign surprise at the content of the Imus in the Morning program strains credulity. What did change is the now very public possibility of being tagged with the label of racist.

The exploitation of that fear is what is known as the race hustle and few are as adept at it as the reverends Sharpton and Jackson. But hey, don’t hate the player, hate the game! Both men are free to pass judgment on issues of race in spite of their own transgressions because their blackness makes them immune to charges of white racism. This immunity along with the amazing ability to be in front of every microphone in sight is the only source of their power.

A nation blind to race and focused on character and virtue is frightening to men like Sharpton and Jackson. The only virtue they possess is their rather deft wielding of the sword of white racism. Disaster for Sharpton and Jackson would have been if the Rutgers team had issued a statement along the lines of, “We don’t know who this clown is, but we are not going to allow his ugliness to distract from the beautiful women we are and the positive things we are doing.” But the power of white racism was too strong and they were lulled into victim hood replete with emotional hand wringing, claims of lives scarred and seasons ruined and appearances on Oprah.

They will in their lives experience much worse.

This sword, of course, cuts both ways. The Teflon that shields the race hustler offers similar protection to the rap artist. The real irony is the very thing that accuses whites is the same thing that makes the identical language in much of the popular culture intractable. As deplorable as we may find the language, our protestations gain little traction because they do not carry with them the weight of white racism. The black community cannot bring to bear the same deadly weapon on members of its own community. That is the real sad and unfortunate realization of this entire affair.

For our own sake, the conversation that will happen following the fall of Don Imus must at some point include the end of white racism. At some point, we must find a way to assuage our guilt over America’s original sin without destroying the foundations of our culture and falling further into the multi-cultural abyss. That is not an argument in favor of incivility or ugliness. It is, however, a plea for some perspective. ----------------------------- Denver native Joseph C. Phillips is a Hollywood actor, a syndicated columnist, a regular on Backbone radio, and the author of He Talk Like a White Boy, available wherever books are sold.

Saturated with video violence

By Dave Petteys (dpetteys@comcast.net) (April 20, Hitler’s Birthday, and the Columbine anniversary) I am appalled by commentators who ask silly rhetorical questions such as “Why do such things happen?” or “How can we understand these events?” or “What’s wrong with our society?” It’s not rocket science. All they have to do is look around! We have wall to wall violence on TV, in movies -- and in video games.

In many of these games, your avatar is walking down a hallway, shooting to the right and left. Is it much of a stretch to see the connection to the killer walking down a hallway in a school, shooting students to the right and left, exploring the rooms and shooting those he finds therein? Just like a video game! What age and gender group are the largest purchasers of violent video games? The same age and gender group that were the killers at Columbine and Virginia Tech.

Of course the media moguls and their lawyers will huff, “There are no studies connecting media and societal violence,” and they will hire expert witness pimps who will confirm it. But common sense tells us that if society wishes to decrease the violence, it might start with major self-restraint in the media.

To the groups that howl for more gun control, that in itself is too small a piece of the puzzle to be effective. It’s like calling for a ban of table knives and forks to combat obesity. Think what the difference might be if movies and video games were more oriented toward non-lethal sports or constructive problem solving?