Conservative Rod Dreher slams Jerry Falwell

National Review On Line The Corner ^ | December 2, 2004 | rod dreher

[heye2monn]

BROOKS AND STOTT [Rod Dreher] I was thrilled to see David Brooks' column criticizing "Meet the Press" for having the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jerry Falwell on, as representatives for the religious left and right, respectively. Sharpton is a "reverend" in the same sense that Col. Sanders was a military officer. And Falwell -- well, maybe this is just me, but I have lots of conservative Evangelical friends, and I don't know any who consider him a representative leader. As someone who has worked in the MSM all my life -- except for three years at the Washington Times, and that glorious year as Kathryn's slave at NR World HQ -- I can attest to how completely out of touch most mainstream journalists are with the world of religion. They call Falwell and Robertson, for example, because Falwell and Robertson are on their Rolodexes, and will show up on time.

[evangmlw]

As an ordained Southern Baptist minister, I have never seen anything to suggest that Al is a Christian. On the other hand, his philosophy indicates that he is anything but a Christian.

[feralcat]

I believe that Chuck Colson would be a better spokesman than Falwell. But, let's face it, if Colson (or anyone else) were to start appearing on TV arguing from a conservative Christian perspective, that person would get demonized by the libs in the exact same way Falwell has.

The libs are intolerant and are totally unwilling to treat conservative Christianity as a legitimate point of view. That's why Falwell and Robertson had their reputations slimed in the first place. No one should assume that changing the spokesmen will erase the liberal and MSM hostility to Bible-believers.

[NickFlooding]

You are entitled to your opinion. But you should also consider the fact that it is primarily us Evangelicals that put the red in the red states.

To the rest of you, Jerry Falwell may not be an elegant speaker but that is exactly why the MSM prefers him. The flip side is that we evangelicals wouldn't have any presence in the MSM unless they could find someone (the MSM) they feel makes us look bad. At lease Jerry Falwell steps up to the plate for what he believes and and presents our point of view. I applaud him for standing up being available to be used by my God!

[My2Cents]

LOL...Well, as one who has experienced forgiveness and redemption myself, I don't hold Watergate against Charles Colson. That Colson is "dead." But perhaps it still influences the media.

[My2Cents]

That's kind of my sense too. Only God can truly say, but if we are to judge by one's fruits....

[My2Cents]

You're right. I have seen Franklin Graham on the tube a few times, and while I love what he is doing through Samaritan's Purse, and while he's a good spokesman for Christian values, both in word and deed, I hate to see him slimed by the likes of Alan Colmes or other libs on the "balanced" Fox. He has more important things to do than spar with People for the American Way, or some other radical secular group. While we may discuss the importance of Christian spokespersons being in the media, they will always be targets of the distain of the left. Maybe the reason we've had Falwell for the past 25 years or so is that no one wants to step up and take his place.

When all is said and done, and Falwell has taken his final hit in the media, I suppose there will be a special reward for him in heaven for his faithfulness.

[Continental Soldier]

Thank you for your point of view. I do appreciate it, truly I do. I have nothing against religion or evangelicals; in fact, I appreciate all that both have done to support our cultural traditions in the face of mindless and vicious attacks from haters of all stripes. My point was only that men like Falwell and others, though honest and commited men of faith, have become lightening rods for all those who want to dismiss our conservative victory by assigning it to the efforts of the "Christian Right." America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, but by Diests whose religious commitments were hesitant, at best. But thank you again for your view.

[blue-duncan]

First and foremost, Falwell is a Pastor, called of God to preach the gospel to the saved and unsaved. His allegiance is to another kingdom. He is of the world not in it. When he steps out of his calling into the political arena he demeans and devalues his calling and slanders the cause of Christ. When you accept the high calling of Pastor you give up certain rights so as not to politicize the Kingdom message. That is why Rev. Falwell is compromised today in Evangelical circles. When he was called upon for his stance on moral matters, like the Baker and Swaggert scandals he was acting within the call. When he became the spokesman for Moral Majority and now Faith and Values, he opens his calling to politics. That is a major step down and casts a cloud over all evangelicals in witnessing.

[Jorge]

What evidence is there that Sharpton is even a Christian?

His hairdo?

[My2Cents]

LOL...that's cold.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

must disagree with you: Falwell and his genre in fact stand against the ACLU. This nation was and yet is a place where all may worship peacefully--or not all. But a conservative secularist approach would be coming from few but the ACLU as an interim step...as one of our Founding Fathers said, the Constitution is suitable for governing only a religious and moral people and no other....Madison I believe. Go to www.Wallbuilders.com if you want to confirm.

[Matchett-PI]

"Usually it's liberals calling rightwing Christians bozos, not Catholics like Dreher." ~ heye2monn

Lots of religious self-described "conservatives" disagree with other religious self-described "conservatives", Roman Catholic, or not.

One explanation could be that even though many conservatives read the orthodox conservative KJV, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, NASB, etc., Bibles, not every "conservative" Bible has the same "slant", as you will see below from an article I excerpted and partially paraphrased from a 1996 Winter issue of the Christian Research Journal.

Topic: How to Choose a Study Bible - By: John R. Kohlenberger III

Read the introduction.

Introductions usually inform one as to the author, readers, date, origin, and the content of the book or section of the Bible; outlines display the contents of a book.

Introductions and outlines differ in thoruoghness and length, but introductions can also differ in perspective.

Those written by conservative scholars take the Bible's self-witness at face value. They agree that Moses wrote all or most of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), that Paul wrote 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, and that Peter wrote 2 Peter because the books themselves say so.

Most non-conservative or liberal scholars, however, use criteria other than the text of the Bible to evaluate its statements and claims. Thus, most liberal scholars believe that a series of editors wrote the Pentateuch, that a disciple or disciples of Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles, and that 2 Peter was written a good half-century after Peter's death.

As a result, the introductions might be the first place to check to discern whether a study Bible takes a conservative or liberal interpretative perspective.

If the Bible has notes, they often betray an alignment with a particular theological or critical approach to the text.

For instance, the notes in the New Jerusalem and New American Bibles are noticeably Roman Catholic in certain texts.

The notes in the Scofield and Ryrie Bibles are conservative, but they are also dispensational.

The notes in the New Oxford Annotated Bible and the Harper Collins Study Bible take a liberal/critical approach.

The notes in the Dake Bible are pentecostal.

The Catholic study Bibles tend to emphasize the historical dogmas of the church at key texts such as Matt. 16:17-19.

Schofield and Ryrie emphasize distinctions between Isreal and the church and literal fulfillment of prophecy (e.g., Acts 15:15-17).

The New Geneva Bible takes a nondispensational approach at these texts. (My choice)

Notes in liberal study Bibles often counter the literal understanding of the text (e.g., Josh.10-11) and point out stories and events they feel are contradictory or fabricated (e.g., Judg.1; 1 Chron.21).

Pentecostal and charismatic writers give extra attention to texts dealing with healing or spiritual gifts (e.g., Matt.8:17; Acts2).

Study Bibles reviewed in this article (* not recommended to Journal readers):

I Subjectively oriented:

A. Conservative Dispensational

1. Companion Bible (Kregel) KJV
2. Ryrie Study Bible (Moody, Expanded Editions) KJV, NASB, NIV
3. Scofield Reference Bible (Oxford) KJV
4. New Scofield Reference Bible (Oxford) KJV, NIV, (World) NASB (Nelson) NKLV

B. Conservative Evangelical

1. Disciple's Study Bible (Broadman & Holman) NIV
2. Harper Study Bible (Zondervan) NASB, NRSV
3. Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (AMG) KJV, NASB
4. Life Application Bible (Tyndale) KJV, LB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV
5. New Student Bible (Zondervan) KJV, NIV, NRSV
6. NIV Study Bible (Zondervan) NIV
7. The Quest Study Bible (Zondervan) NIV
8. Word In LifeStudy Bible ([NT] Nelson) NKJV, NRSV

C. Conservative: Pentecostal / Charismatic

1. * Dake's Annotated Reference Bible (Dake) KJV
2. Full Life Study Bible (Zondervan) KJV, NKJV
3. Spirit-Filled Life Bible (Nelson) KJV, NKJV
4. * The Word Study Bible (Harrison House) KJV

D. Conservative Reformed:

1. New Geneva Study Bible (Nelson) NKJV --- (My choice)

E. Conservative: Wesleyan / Holiness

1. The Wesley Bible (Nelson) NKJV

F. Nonconservative: Mainline Protestant

1. * Cambridge Annotated Study Bible (Cambridge) NRSV
2. * HarperCollins Study Bible (HarperCollins) NRSV
3. * New Oxford Annotated Bible (Oxford) NRSV
4. * Oxford Study Bible (Oxford) REB

G. Nonconservative: Roman Catholic

1. * The Catholic Bible: Personal Study edition (Oxford) NAB
2. * The Catholic Study Bible (Oxford) NAB
3. * New Jerusalem Bible (Doubleday)

II Objectively Oriented (ALL GREAT)

A. Dickenson New Analytical Study Bible (World) KJV

B. New Open Bible (Nelson, Expanded Edition) KJV, NASB, NKJV

C. Thompson Chain-Reference Bible (Kirkbride) KJV, NIV, NASB, NKJV

*
Note: As far as "versions" go, the KJV, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, and the NASB are all dependable and useful for serious study and personal devotions.

[heye2monn]

Bible translations aside (and you've obviously studied a lot) it makes no sense for Dreher to do this. He is a brilliant writer and a solid conservative Catholic (as opposed to Father Drinan). Yet he hammers Falwell as a bozo (by endorsing the words of squishy "conservative" David Brooks).

A conservative can certainly argue on pragmatic grounds that Falwell is too fat for television, or misinteprets particular verses in the Bible, or gaffes once in a while. But he is obviously not stupid, and has done so much for a good cause, why viciously call him a bozo?