Those of you who’ve been reading my stuff for awhile know of my history with evangelical Christianity. It’s not something I write about much, because one has to spend a great deal of time defining terms before arguments can be clearly made. This is true in all matters pertaining to religion, because every sect of every faith has its own definitions of even the most basic of terms.

Even the term “religion” itself requires definition before it can be discussed in the field of fair play, so any argument about the subject without mutually understood definitions increases the likelihood of misunderstanding. In Webster’s 1828 dictionary, for example, the first definition of “religion” includes a reference to God Almighty of the Bible. Hence, not every group that calls itself a religion using a contemporary definition would qualify as a religion at the time of, say, the first amendment’s writing.

Definitions change.

So I don’t write much about my past in this world (some want me to write a book), but Jerry Falwell’s death this week demands a comment.

So before I make a couple of points, here are some definitions:

When I speak of “evangelical” Christians, I’m talking about the group that wraps the essence of their beliefs around what’s known as “the great commission” found in Matthew 28:

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.”

Because this is a top priority, this form of Christianity is a threat to other religions — and even other nations (Islam’s evangelical nature is problematic as well) — but it’s important to understand that not all Christians follow this so literally. Some believe in the concept of teaching by example and view that as more Christ-like than “preaching” the Gospel. Who can forget Ghandi’s famous quote, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Generally speaking, and again this is my definition, this group of Christians tends to be socially conservative, because the personal responsibility message fits their need to “save” what they view as sinners from behaviors such as abortion and homosexuality. Their view of foreign policy tends toward the “saving” of nations.

Moreover, within the evangelical community, not all play well together. There is a deep difference, for example, between those evangelicals (charismatics) who believe in a literal interpretation of the gifts of the spirit — as found in the second chapter of Acts and First Corinthians 12 — and those who don’t. I worked for Pat Robertson, who falls into the former camp. Jerry Falwell’s group was in the latter. Contrary to what might appear on the surface, these two “sects” are really only comfortable with each other politically.

This was why it was so extremely odd that Falwell got involved in the mess with Jim Bakker. Bakker and the PTL crowd were charismatics, and for awhile, the events looked like the non-charismatic crowd reaching out for healing. That was not the case, and I firmly believe nobody on the planet was happier to see Bakker go to prison than Jerry Falwell.

An absolute belief in the righteousness of their calling is a key plank in the core of evangelical Christianity. After all, the great commission is the instruction Jesus gave to the flock prior to “ascending into heaven.” The problem, of course, is in the interpretation of those marching orders.

The thing most people miss about evangelicals (remember, I’m speaking using my definitions) is the sincerity of their belief that without Jesus, people are going to hell. Their behavior can be and often is reprehensible to that end — no doubt — but my own personal experience leads me to the belief that this behavior flows from an absolute and sincere assurance that what they are doing is “right.” This is what makes this group so dangerous to some, but my point is that I disagree with those who’ve commented about Falwell and insist that he was insincere, self-centered and aware of his hypocrisy. I’m not so sure.

The guy may have been an ass, but it’s irrelevant to argue his sincerity. The point is that the real difficulties people had with Falwell and his ilk fall more into the whole of his beliefs, and personal attacks miss that point completely.

I always found him to be a man who had to work to smile. He presented a jolly demeanor, but I always wondered if it was there when he turned his back. When you are staff working for a major ministry, you see things and are aware of things that are out of the reach of most. Compared to a guy like Chuck Colson, who was affable, friendly and approachable, you’d be hard-pressed to see them as a part of the same mix (Colson is not of the charismatic crowd either).

Personality played an enormous role in Falwell’s life, and the apple never falls very far from the tree. It’s my hope that the new trees that spring up in his place will perhaps produce a different kind of fruit.

When I was at CBN, we did a Gallup survey on public perceptions of Christians. It wasn’t pretty, but it led to very smart strategies on-the-air for The 700 Club. Whatever the study said, we would try to present evangelical Christians as the opposite. Young, diverse, hip, smart, intelligent, conditioned, good-looking; those were the targets of our cameras.

If you ever saw that study, though, and were to use it to paint a portrait of how Americans viewed evangelicals, the picture would’ve resembled one man: Jerry Falwell. White, male, overweight, polyester, close-minded, intellectually suspect, and Bible-thumping. He chose to put himself forward as representative of his people, and he died with that effort rewarded. He was the face of the evangelicals.

I think a lot of my contemporaries view Falwell’s Moral Majority, Pat Robertson’s Freedom Council and evangelical Christian politics in general as the work of the lunatic fringe. While I completely understand this perspective, the reality is those groups would never have achieved strength or influence in American politics if their message didn’t resonate with those beyond the fringe. And it may not be cool to run with evangelicals, but you don’t have to run with them to vote with them.

The left would do well to understand what resonates instead of hollering about the fringe. The line between personal responsibility and “what’s in it for me” is a fine one, and the message of evangelicals has always been about saving one’s own ass.

Jerry Falwell was a lightning rod on behalf of the Christian right, and I can remember watching my colleagues cringe every time he accepted a media invitation to get the crap beat out of him in a live interview. He stood there and took it with a painted smile, determined that it was better that his perspective be represented by him than by anyone else.

The truth is the media loved Jerry Falwell, because he could always be counted on to say something provocative, if not completely astonishing. They needed him. Hell, they helped create him. And in many ways, he needed them. The more they beat him up, the stronger he appeared to his flock as representing the treatment Jesus received from the ruling class of his day. They were the enemy. He was the martyr. In his heart, I’m sure Falwell felt he was in good company.

So the face of evangelical Christianity is gone now. And the question now is who will take his place?

The funeral will be Tuesday. My prayer is for peace.

This entry was posted on Sunday, May 20th, 2007 at 11:18 am and is filed under Culture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.