Introduction

The following is a study of the Christian Right as represented by the late Jerry

Falwell. Dr. Falwell is chosen for three reasons. First, he was a central figure in the Christian

Right. In many respects, his writing and thought continue to inform the agenda of the religious

right. Indeed, as we shall see, Dr. Falwell laid the theological groundwork for three key elements

in the culture wars: the Judeo-Christian ethic, the existence of two kingdoms, and the attack on

the family. Each of these shall be evaluated. Second, Falwell wrote extensively on political

activism. There is abundant material to sift for his views. Third, Jerry Falwell was a man of

Christian integrity. While one may not agree with what he wrote, one may be certain that

Falwell’s true beliefs were being put forward.

The essay seeks to ask why Dr. Falwell engaged in political activities. The essay

focuses on the rationales that Falwell offered over the years. It is affirmed in the evaluation that

some of these emphases were flawed biblically.

Accordingly, my methodology allows Falwell to answer the question from his

own writings. While a fair amount of material is presented, I justify these citations in a desire to

let the man speak for himself.

Furthermore, the methodology is roughly chronological. That is, I attempt to

present the rationales as they were articulated.

Finally, I should state my own biases. While I respect and admire Dr. Falwell’s

work, I do not support his political activism. The reasons for this will be clear at the end of the

essay.
 Analysis of Dr. Falwell’s reasons for political activism may be arranged

chronologically. Accordingly, I note his pre-Moral Majority, Moral Majority, and post-

Moral Majority statements touching on the bases for his activities.

Pre-Moral Majority

The pre-Moral Majority rationales for Jerry Falwell’s political activism

may be divided into two categories. After an initial reluctance, Falwell reacted to what

he saw as the social deterioration infecting America. Moreover, he confronted

theological issues that seemed to compel him to act.

The initial reluctance to engage. During the social upheavals of the

1960's, Jerry Falwell steadfastly refused to engage in politically oriented activities.

Falwell’s Baptist training taught him to separate the activities of church

and state. He wrote, “In my 1965 sermon, ‘Ministers and Marches’, I took a strong

position against preachers taking political action.”1 Indeed, at this time Falwell was of

the opinion that “government could be trusted to correct its own ills.”2

As Falwell saw things, the Christian pastor was called to engage the

spiritual needs of mankind, eschewing the secular. He wrote, “I sincerely believed that

the Christian’s best contribution to social change was his or her faithfulness to our

primary goals: studying the Word, preaching the Gospel, winning souls, building

churches and Christian schools, and praying for the eventual healing of our nation.”3

Obviously, Jerry Falwell’s religious tradition played a key role in his

refusal to participate in politics. Commenting on the religious tradition that he had

1Jerry Falwell, Strength For The Journey: An Autobiography (New York:

Simon and Schuster, 1987), 337.

2Ibid.

3Ibid., 338.
inherited, he wrote, “most of the early circuit-riding preachers and tent evangelists

condemned lawyers, politicians, abolitionists and suffragettes alike.”4

This religious heritage places in clear relief the inner turbulence that the

Roe v. Wade decision had on Falwell. Indeed, abortion is one of the central social crises

that motivated Jerry Falwell’s activism.

The impact of Roe v. Wade. By his own account, the Roe v. Wade decision

had a profound impact on Jerry Falwell. He vividly recalled his reaction to the

newspaper accounts of the decision: “I sat there staring at the Roe v. Wade story, growing

more and more fearful of the consequences of the Supreme Court’s act and wondering

why so few voices had been raised against it.”5 Falwell was especially disturbed by the

silence of evangelicals and fundamentalists on this scandal. As Falwell saw it, the

Catholics were the only ones standing against abortion.

Moreover, abortion on demand had additional consequences for Falwell.

That is, he came to doubt that America would survive the judgement of God over this

decision. Discussing the matter one evening at home with his family, he told his children,

“it is doubtful that you will be living in a free America when you are the same age as

your parents.”6

Falwell took up the fight against abortion in his Thomas Road Baptist

Church pulpit. He studied abortion from a variety of vantage points. He familiarized

himself with the procedure as well as the effects on the mother. Over time, Falwell’s

views began to broaden. He wrote, “my focus widened and my commitment to Biblically

based, thoroughly Christian social action deepened.”7 As he preached from the Thomas

4Ibid.

5Ibid., 335.

6Ibid., 340.

7Ibid., 342.
Road pulpit, Jerry Falwell was soon calling for “all-out political involvement by the

Christian community.”8

During this period, Falwell began crusading against the moral evils that he

saw corrupting America. In 1978, he wrote about the church’s function in crusading

against sin: “Writing laws and changing them is the job for the legislature. Only our

representatives can make laws and only judges can penalize those who break them. We

are churchmen and we are here to point out the spiritual implications of our laws.”9

Moreover, Falwell began to widen the scope of the social cancers that he

saw slowly but inexorably killing America. He cited abortion, homosexuality, the drug

culture, the lack of America’s military preparedness and pornography.

The net effect is that Roe v. Wade awakened Jerry Falwell to a broad view

of America’s social deterioration. These social sins were the occasion of Jerry Falwell’s

entry into the world of political activism. There were, beyond the social deterioration,

theological issues that compelled Falwell to action.

The inadequacy of preaching. As we’ve noted, shortly after the Roe v.

Wade decision, Jerry Falwell began preaching on the issue at Thomas Road and on The

Old Time Gospel Hour. Soon, in the winter of 1973, Falwell began to have a change of

heart on the adequacy of preaching. He wrote, “it soon became apparent that this time

preaching would not be enough.”10 Five years later, during the period of crusading

against the moral degeneracy of America, Falwell echoed these sentiments. He wrote,

“Since Gospel preaching alone will not clean up our society, we must crusade against

sin.”11 This “crusading” amounted to Christians at the grassroots pointing out the

8Ibid.

9Jerry Falwell, How You Can Help Clean Up America (Lynchburg:

Liberty Publishing Company, 1978), 31.

10Falwell, Strength For The Journey, 337.

11Falwell, Clean Up America, 31.

spiritual implications of law. That is, the idea was that “laws can be changed and court

decisions can be overruled. Christians can alter the laws of the communities where they

live.”12

Apparently, Jerry Falwell came to the conclusion that merely preaching

from the pulpit or on The Old Time Gospel Hour would not be enough. The efficacy of

preaching had been eclipsed and the time had come for a different sort of activism. The

net effect was that the inadequacy of preaching became a rationale for Falwell’s

activism.13 Given this state of affairs, Falwell had to develop a more comprehensive

theological rationale for political involvement.

The theological rationale. During the pre-Moral Majority period, Jerry

Falwell reached several conclusions. First, America was in danger of morally and

socially imploding. Second, evangelicals and fundamentalists were largely silent. Third,

preaching did not appear to be equal to the task of cleansing America.

Falwell seemed to be in a dilemma. He saw what he thought was the

problem but his religious tradition kept the activities of church and state separate. In

order to follow through on increased political activism, Jerry Falwell needed a

theological rationale. He found it in Matthew 22 and 25.

Jerry Falwell’s primary theological rationale for political activism resided

in Matthew 22. Specifically, Falwell took note of Jesus’ words, “Render to Caesar the

things that are Caesar’s; render to God the things that are God’s.” In Falwell’s reading of

this passage, the Christian lives in two different worlds simultaneously. He then teased

out three implications (he is a Baptist sermonizer!) of this central thesis. Each of these

implications provided a theological rationale for political activism.

12Ibid., 46.

13On a personal note, during my last pastorate in Washington, I wrote an

essay for the local paper critical of political involvement. After the piece was published,
I received several letters. One noted that “we have to do more than preach; preaching
isn’t effective.” Falwell’s rationale had reached the grassroots.
 The first implication was that “we who are committed to the invisible

world of God and to His values cannot simply stand aside while the other world destroys

itself and the world we share.”14 The upshot was that the Christian is morally committed

to engage the world in which one lives.

The second implication was that different rules apply to the different

worlds in which we live. Falwell wrote that Jesus “was not just telling us to be

responsible in both worlds. He was also reminding us that we live in two worlds

simultaneously and that we need to keep the worlds apart.”15 This meant that “what we

do in God’s world and with His people has different rules from what we do in the world

of government, with elected officials and volunteers.”16 This implication justified

political activism on the grounds that the “rules” that apply to the world of man are

inherently political.

The third implication may well have been the most influential rationale for

political activism. For, Falwell averred that the world of God takes priority over the

world of man. He wrote, “Although we live in two worlds simultaneously and although

both worlds are to be kept separate, when there is a conflict between the worlds, the

world of God takes precedence over the world of man.”17

This third implication had two consequences. In the first place, “When we

feel that the law of man is unjust or contrary to the law of God, we work to change man’s

law.”18 This consequence justified using every legal tool available for changing what is

in conflict with God’s law. In the second place, “if the law of man actually comes into

14Falwell, Strength For The Journey, 343.

15Ibid.

16Ibid., 344.

17Ibid.

18Ibid.
conflict with the law of God, we disobey man’s law and pay the penalty.”19 This

consequence justified using non-violent civil disobedience to protest or change what is in

conflict with God’s law.

In sum, Matthew 22 offered three bases for political activism. First, the

Christian is morally obligated to the world in which he lives. Second, the world to which

the believer is morally obligated operates by its own set of rules. The believer is

obligated to operate by this set of rules. Third, the Christian is obligated to bring man’s

law into conformity with God’s law.20

Jerry Falwell also justified his political activism on Matthew 25. That is,

he teased out the implications of 25:31-46 in terms of judgement. Specifically, Falwell’s

thesis was that the Christian will answer to God for his/her activism, or the lack of it.

Falwell focused on Jesus’ words, “When you have done it unto one of the

least of these, you have done it unto me.” Indeed, these are the words “that have

challenged men and women to take action on behalf of the needy for the past twenty

centuries.”21 For Falwell, this challenge to take up the cudgels on behalf of the needy

included political activism. He wrote that the needs Jesus spoke about were “a call to

seek justice and mercy on behalf of all who suffer.”22

In sum, the pre-Moral Majority Falwell was motivated to political

activism for both social and theological reasons. Socially, Roe v. Wade opened a

pandora’s box of societal ills. Theologically, Falwell came to doubt the efficacy of

preaching and thus turned to the New Testament to base his increased interest in political

19Ibid.

20For Jerry Falwell, the chief expression of “God’s law” in an American

political context is the so-called Judeo-Christian ethic, which I discuss below. Falwell is
not a theonomist.

21Ibid., 351.

22Ibid., 352.
activism. Citing Matthew 22, Jerry Falwell concluded that a believer was morally

obligated to engage the world in which he lived. Moreover, the believer was obliged to

operate by the rules that governed the world, ultimately with a view to bringing the law

of man into conformity with the law of God.

The Founding of the Moral Majority

We now consider the rationales for founding the Moral Majority.

Basically, the Moral Majority was a response to national immorality, government

encroachment on church and family, and the demise of the Judeo-Christian ethic in

national life.

National immorality as a rationale. In 1978 and 1979, Jerry Falwell began

taking musical teams from Liberty University on tours of American cities. The group’s

presentation, America, You’re Too Young To Die!, combined an indictment of America’s

national sins with a call to repentance and renewal. The rationale for this revivalist

agenda was clearly stated by Falwell. He wrote, “When sin moves to the front, preachers

and Christians everywhere must speak out.”23

The national scope of Falwell’s effort was based upon his assessment of

national decadence. During this period, he often drew upon the analogy of the nation of

Israel in the book of Judges. That is, for Falwell, the story of the nation in Judges was the

story of one form of bondage after another. Analogously, Falwell wrote, “I think our

country is now at the point where we could fall.”24

Naturally, this state of affairs called for action. Citing the promise of 2

Chronicles 7:14, Falwell’s rationale for his work became turning the nation from

wickedness so God could heal the land. Jerry Falwell believed that the nation faced

perilous times and that Christians had a key role to play in the national solution..

23Ibid., 357.

24Ibid., 358.
 The inadequacy of preaching as a rationale. After intense efforts at touring

and preaching, Falwell continued to note the ineffectiveness of preaching the Gospel.

Indeed, by May of 1979, in spite of the revivalist work that Falwell and Liberty

University had been doing, the national crisis actually seemed to be growing. Falwell

lamented at that time, “In spite of everything we were doing to turn the nation back to

God, to morality, and to constructive patriotism, the national crisis was growing quickly

out of hand.”25 Indeed, there was a laundry list of national sins that his attempts at

spiritual renewal were not touching: divorce, sexual abuse, physical abuse, pornography,

drug and alcohol abuse, unjust court decisions and the rise of crime. All things

considered, “something more had to be done than preaching on television or singing on

the steps of the state capitol buildings of America.”26

By May of 1979, the failure of preaching to meet the challenge of

America’s spiritual decline was acutely felt. Conservative leaders from around the

country, meeting with Falwell in Lynchburg, decided to draw up a plan to save America

from itself. Up to this point, Falwell’s attempts to bring spiritual renewal amounted to

what he called “training”. The time for merely preaching the Gospel had come and gone.

Indeed, Falwell would write, “Now it was time to act seriously.”27 The plan for serious

action included responding to government encroachment and the demise of the Judeo-

Christian ethic in national life.

Government encroachment as a rationale. Looking back on the founding

of the Moral Majority, Falwell was quick to point out what he saw as government

encroachment. He wrote, “The government was encroaching upon the sovereignty of

both the Church and the family.”28 Falwell cited examples of this encroachment: “The

Supreme Court had legalized abortion on demand. The Equal Rights Amendment, with
25Ibid.

26Ibid., 359.

27Ibid.
its vague language, threatened to do further damage to the traditional family, as did the

rising sentiment toward so-called homosexual rights.”29

For Falwell, abortion encroached upon God’s will for the dignity of human

life. ERA and homosexual rights encroached upon what Falwell saw as the Judeo-

Christian consensus in American definitions of family. Indeed, America’s defiance of the

Judeo-Christian ethic was another central rationale for the founding of the Moral

Majority.

The Judeo-Christian ethic as a rationale. At the aforementioned May 1979

meeting in Lynchburg, Paul Weyrich proposed that there was in America a “moral

majority” that agreed on basic issues. Since these people were not organized politically,

the idea was to bring them together across their shared morality and speak to government

on their behalf.

For Jerry Falwell, and the founders of the Moral Majority, America’s

shared morality was, and still is, encapsulated in the Judeo-Christian ethic. Indeed, the

reason for the moral decline of America was, and is, its defiance of the ethic upon which

the country was founded. Falwell wrote, “Moral Majority strongly supports a pluralistic

America. While we believe that this nation was founded upon the Judeo-Christian ethic

by men and women who were strongly influenced by biblical moral principles, we are

committed to the separation of Church and State.”30 The upshot was that the Moral

majority was neither an evangelistic nor religious movement. Rather, the movement

sought to restore the Judeo-Christian ethic upon which the country had been founded.

Indeed, Falwell deniesd any religious component to the movement, writing that “he did

not found the Moral Majority to enshrine into law any set of fundamentalist Christian

28Jerry Falwell, ed., The Fundamentalist Phenomenon (Garden City:

Doubleday & Company, 1981), 188.

29Ibid.

30Ibid., 188-89.
doctrines.”31 Rather, the Moral Majority brought together “people of like moral and

political values...uniting to save the country.”32

Jerry Falwell, and those who follow in his steps, consistently maintain the

foundational character of the Judeo-Christian ethic in national life. In 1984, Falwell

showed how this ethic is a rationale for political activism.

To begin with, Falwell claimed that the first principle of the Judeo-

Christian ethic is the principle of the dignity of human life. Citing Exodus 20:13 and

Matthew 5:21-22, he wrote, “The sanctity of life was once the cornerstone of our

society.”33 Falwell was unambiguous about this principle’s impact on politics: “we must

look for candidates who will translate our belief that life is sacred into policy.”34

Second, the Judeo-Christian ethic defined the traditional family. Pointing

to Genesis 2:21-24 and Ephesians 5:22-23, Falwell affirmed that one man united in

marriage to one woman constitutes the traditional family. As a rationale for policy-

making, Christians must support those who “encourage the traditional values of the

family.”35

Calling on Genesis 3:7,21 and Matthew 5:27-28, Falwell pointed to the

principle of common decency as the third aspect of the Judeo-Christian ethic. This

principle impacts a wide range of issues, such as pornography and sexual deviation. As a

rationale for political activism, Christians should support those persons and policies that

reflect this common decency.

31Falwell, Strength For The Journey, 370.

32Ibid., 364.

33Jerry Falwell, “What I Look For In A Political Candidate,” The

Fundamentalist Journal 3 (November, 1984): 8.

34Ibid.

35Ibid.
 In the fourth place, Falwell avers that a work ethic was also part and

parcel with the Judeo-Christian ethic. Pointing to Genesis 3:19 and Exodus 20:9-10 in

the Old Testament as well as 2 Thessalonians 3:10 in the New Testament, Falwell

believed that those who are able should labor for their sustenance. This tenet of the

Judeo-Christian ethic was the basis for opposing the welfare state, since it “generates an

unnatural dependence on government as a caretaker.”36 Moreover, this principle was the

basis for supporting policies that create a strong economy, since a strong economy

produces jobs.

Fifth, Falwell cited “the principle of the Abrahamic covenant” as a piece

of the Judeo-Christian ethic. Mustering Genesis 12:1-3 and Romans 11:1-2, Falwell

wrote, “Throughout history, God blessed every nation in regard to its relationship with

Israel.”37 As a rationale for politics, policy-makers must “support the right of Israel to

exist.”38 Curiously, Falwell noted that since the founding of the state of Israel in 1948,

the United States has defended the right of Israel to exist. One wonders how the colonial

founders ever managed God’s blessing without Israel.

Sixth, the Judeo-Christian ethic also included the principle of a God-

centered education. Leaning on Deuteronomy 6:4-9 and Ephesians 6:4, Falwell noted

that “the fathers of our nation predicated our founding documents on a belief in a

Supreme Being.”39 As a rationale for policy, “policy-makers must ensure that young

people will have the freedom to exercise their religious beliefs and that schools refrain

from mandating the religion of Secular Humanism.”40

36Ibid.

37Ibid., 40.

38Ibid.

39Ibid.

40Ibid.
 Finally, drawing upon Genesis 14:13-24 and 1 Timothy 5:8, Falwell

proposed that the protection of the citizenry is part of the Judeo-Christian ethic. As a

rationale for policy, we must support “a strong military defense and be willing to make a

long-range plan for the security and well-being of our children.”41

In sum, the rationales for founding the Moral Majority coalesced around

issues from the pre-Moral Majority days. Pride of place goes to national moral decline.

Members of the Moral Majority considered abortion, pornography, the drug epidemic, the

breakdown of the traditional family and the acceptance of homosexuality as rationales for

defying this moral decline.

Moral Majority also based its activities on what it saw as government

encroachment in the sphere of the church. In 1982, Falwell could write, “The

Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Whenever the

judicial courts, the state and federal bureaucracies, municipal authorities, educational

agencies and social services threaten to dilute or direct the message of the church, we

must defend our basic freedom to exist in a free and pluralistic society.”42

Finally, Falwell got a lot of mileage out of the Judeo-Christian ethic. As

he saw it, the political involvement of Christians does not violate the ethic upon which

the country was founded. Indeed, the emergence of fundamentalists and evangelicals into

politics in no way violates the historical principles of this nation. “The incorporation of

Christian principles into both the structure and the basic documents of our nation is a

matter of historical fact.”43 Finally, as we’ve seen, the Judeo-Christian ethic provides a

rationale for a wide variety of policy matters.

Post-Moral Majority

41Ibid.

42Jerry Falwell, “Religious Liberty,” The Fundamentalist Journal 2

(October, 1982): 7.

43Falwell, The Fundamentalist Phenomenon, 192-93.

 On October 29, 1986, Jerry Falwell announced to his supporters that his

priorities were changing. In a letter to his co-workers, he informed them that

involvement in political issues and campaigns would no longer claim the bulk of his time.

Although Falwell had bowed out of formal leadership in political activism,

he stated that he had no intention of abandoning the field totally.44 Accordingly, in this

section of the article, I shall show that Jerry Falwell maintained an ongoing interest in

political activism.

Falwell’s ongoing interest in politics. The post-Moral Majority Jerry

Falwell continued to be interested in political activism. The renewed focus was on the

family.

Falwell cited, with approval, Francis Schaeffer’s notion of “co-belligerents

working together for the common good.”45 Reminiscent of the Moral Majority, Falwell

wrote, “In the cause of saving the family, I would hope that pro-family Catholics,

mainline Protestants, evangelicals, charismatics, and others would join hands with

secularists who may share our family values.”46

Falwell was unambiguous about the extent of political activism that he

sees as appropriate. He called upon America’s co-belligerents to coalesce “into an

unbeatable voting bloc that will change the make-up of city councils, school boards, State

Legislatures, the Congress, the White House, and the Judicial System.”47 Falwell

envisioned government support for the family as a result of grassroots involvement. He

wrote that support for the family would come when men and women “make the family

44See Jerry Falwell, “Will I Ever Get Out of Politics?”, The

Fundamentalist Journal 5 (November, 1986): 10.

45Jerry Falwell, The New American Family (Dallas: Word Publishing,

1992), 118.

46Ibid.

47Ibid.
their top priority and when we each transform our convictions into power at the polls and

through persistent political action.”48

The net effect was that political activism involved electing and holding

accountable policy-makers who were committed to “enacting legislation and programs

that will help restore the authority and the autonomy of the traditional family.”49 Clearly,

Jerry Falwell remained committed to political activism, in the voting booth and in the

making of policy. The question is: what was the rationale?

The family as rationale. The overriding rationale for the political activism

of the post-Moral Majority Jerry Falwell was the family. Indeed, the same laundry list of

national sins noted above was now viewed as “anti-family”. It is here that we can

appreciate the ongoing legacy of Dr. Falwell.

To be sure, concern for the family is now a staple of the Christian Right.

In 1990, Dr. James Dobson and Gary Bauer wrote of a civil war of values directed against

the church and the family. As a repository of the Judeo-Christian ethic, the family is

viewed as under severe attack by the secular humanists. Dobson and Bauer write, “Alas,

the beleaguered, exhausted, oppressed, and over-taxed family now stands unprotected

against a mighty foe.”50 Ominously, these authors warn that if the church fails and the

family collapses, the cultural war is lost.51

Falwell seemed to concur. The overriding rationale for his political

activism was what he perceived as the traditional family under attack by government.

48Ibid., 197-98.

49Ibid., 208.

50James Dobson and Gary Bauer, Children At Risk: The Battle for the
Hearts and Minds of Our Kids (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1990), 23.

51Ibid.
Individually or collectively, these governmental sorties against the family had to be

resisted. They were a rationale for political activism.52

The United States Congress was, and is in this view, a commando in the

warfare against the family. Falwell wrote, “During the past two or three decades, the

United States Congress has become increasingly anti-family.”53 One of the weapons of

this congressional warfare is the welfare system. This system has become “an anti-family

colossus that rewards women for having babies out of wedlock and penalizes unmarried

mothers for marrying working husbands.”54

Another anti-family position fomented in Congress was the effort to grant

minority status to homosexuals. Especially problematic was the implicit redefinition of

marriage via recognition of same sex marriages.

The judiciary was also targeted as anti-family. Falwell believed that “little

by little, the courts have been eaten away by liberal values and a socialized agenda to

redefine and restructure the moral systems of this nation.”55

Secular humanism, especially within the public school system, was yet

another anti-family enemy. Falwell noted, “many public school teachers and

administrators are imprisoned by the gurus of progressive education.”56 The infiltration

of secular humanism was particularly clear in sex education. According to Falwell, the

52Without belaboring the point, I mention only five. For a complete list
of government’s salvos against the family, see chapter 4, “Meeting the Enemy Face to
Face”, in The New American Family by Falwell.

53Falwell, The New American Family, 66.

54Ibid.

55Ibid., 68.

56Ibid., 78.
humanist agenda maintained that “sex before marriage is both acceptable and

prevalent.”57

Finally, abortion was, and still is, high on the list of enemies warring with

the family. Jerry Falwell viewed government’s increasing acquiescence to the pro-choice

lobby as unconscionable. “Apart from the unborn lives that it ends, abortion creates

untold misery that does nothing to build individuals or strengthen families.”58

The upshot was that these social issues were reasons to respond politically.

Indeed, response seemed to be called for by the Bible.

In discussing the co-belligerence theme, Falwell remarked, “as we

perform our ‘light of the world’ ministry of changing a destructive anti-family trend, we

must also perform our ‘salt of the earth’ outreach.”59 Falwell was clear that ‘outreach’

means political activism: “We must force government to do what is right. We must shut

down the anti-family voices on the left. We must outvote them.”60

Accountability to God was another biblical rationale for a political

response. Falwell has consistently argued that Christians will answer to God for their

reaction to societal degeneration. As we’ve seen, in the pre-Moral Majority days,

Christians were accountable before God for a wide variety of social cancers.

Accordingly, Falwell still proposed that Christians are accountable for the national state

of the family. “If the family should, indeed, fail, or if perverse activists and public

officials legislate away its legitimate rights and privileges, we will be the ones to blame.

And you and I will be accountable before God.”61

57Ibid., 79.

58Ibid., 98.

59Ibid., 118.

60Ibid.

61Ibid., 198.
 Finally, Jerry Falwell still made use of the Judeo-Christian ethic as a

rationale for political activism. Toward the end of The New American Family, Falwell

wrote that Christians should support policy-makers “who are clearly and vocally

committed to the Judeo-Christian values on which this country was founded.”62 Indeed,

on the last page of the book, Falwell warned, “we need to return to the Judeo-Christian

truths that give us moral strength and a reason for living.”63

Evaluation

I now wish to evaluate three of Falwell’s rationales for political activism:

the Judeo-Christian ethic, the doctrine of living in two worlds simultaneously, and the

emphasis on the family. It is hoped that this evaluation will bring light on the

relationship between political activism and the Bible.

The weakness of the law. The Judeo-Christian ethic as a rationale for

engagement in government as well as a model for policy ignores the inherent weakness of

law, taken in and of itself. Indeed, for law to work, including the laws of the Judeo-

Christian ethic, a covenantal relationship is required.

As we’ve noted, appeal to the Judeo-Christian ethic is endemic among

leaders of the Christian Right.

In 1990, Dobson and Bauer argued for the rightful place of the Judeo-

Christian ethic in government. Moreover, the authors insisted that America must return to

a Judeo-Christian value system. How does one return to Judeo-Christian values? “Our

best hope is to reinstate its precepts into government, the schools and into our homes.”64

In 1994, Ralph Reed took note of the declaration, “Evangelicals and

Catholics Together”. He wrote that the statement had important political overtones. To

wit, “The statement also called for ‘convergence and cooperation’ in advocating school
62Ibid., 218.

63Ibid., 222.

64Dobson and Bauer, 260-61.

choice, religious freedom, the teaching of Judeo-Christian values in schools, racial

justice, and a free market economy.”65

Leaders of the Christian Right might want to consider the biblical notion

of the weakness of law to reverse moral decline.

The Mosaic law - which seems to be foundational for Falwell’s idea of the

Judeo-Christian ethic - was never able to change the human heart. This inability to

change mankind from the inside is the inherent weakness of law, whether Mosaic or

Judeo-Christian.

The Old Testament confirms the notion that law, in and of itself, cannot

change moral behavior. In Jeremiah 31:31-34, Yahweh Himself has to overcome the

law’s inability to change the human heart. Indeed, the prophet promises that a day is

coming when Yahweh will write His law on the hearts of the people. Ezekiel takes this

idea step further. He points to a day when mankind can have a new spirit and a new

heart, moving obedience to the law.

Paul buys into the same idea. In Romans 7:14-24, he avers, among other

things, that law in and of itself is powerless to move him to do the good he wants to do.

Then, echoing Ezekiel, he insists that the Holy Spirit enables fulfillment of the law (8:3).

The net effect is that law - whether Mosaic or Judeo-Christian - is utterly

powerless to sway the human heart to obey it. Falwell, Dobson, Bauer and Reed seem to

assume that a Judeo-Christian system enacted is a Judeo-Christian system lived. They

disregard the common consent of the Old and New Testaments: law cannot change the

human heart.

Law implies covenant. There is another biblical oversight touching the

Judeo-Christian ethic. That is, in both Old and New Testaments, law presumes a

covenant.

65Ralph Reed, Politically Incorrect (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1994), 14.

 Even Falwell’s description of the Judeo-Christian ethic is telling in this

regard.66 Of the seven principles that make up his description of the Judeo-Christian

ethic, the biblical bases alternate between the Mosaic, Abrahamic, and New covenants.

Law, as a characteristic of a holy life, presumes a covenant relationship.

As we’ve noted, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Paul insist on the Spirit of God as the sole power

enabling obedient fulfillment of the law. The upshot is that the umbrella over law is a

covenant relationship with God.

Thus, the Judeo-Christian ethic as both rationale and model is fatally

flawed. Indeed, it appears that God’s intention for law and life is inherently different

from the proposals of Falwell and friends. To put the same thing another way, devotees

of the Christian Right might want to ask if their agenda doesn’t border on idolatry.

Life in two different worlds. Jerry Falwell’s reading of Matthew 22 yields

the notion that Christians live in two different worlds simultaneously. Accordingly,

different rules apply to each. I wish to suggest that in polarizing God and Caesar, Falwell

ignores a key aspect of the Messianic era as outlined in Isaiah.

Isaiah opens in the times of earthly rulers, like Caesar. Isaiah closes with

promises of a new heaven and a new earth. Along the way, the means by which men are

ruled shifts from the world of temporal rulers to the rule of the Messianic King. John

Watts summarizes the point well:

The book of Isaiah is a major exponent of the view that people

of God be separate from the state, a spiritual gathering of those
who would serve God in spirit and in truth. It teaches that God’s
power can more appropriately be shown in and through such a
group than through national power.67

66See pages 12-14 above.

67John D.W. Watts, Isaiah 1-33 (Waco: Word Publishing, 1985), lvii.
 Rather than two worlds existing simultaneously, Isaiah foresees a day

when only one world - that of the Messiah - would hold sway. Indeed, the prophet makes

this point crystal clear in his ninth chapter. For, Isaiah tells us that the “government” will

rest on the Messiah’s shoulders; that there will be no end to the extent of this government;

and that the Messiah’s rule will be established forevermore. The upshot is that Isaiah

proclaims a shift in strategy from theocratic kinds of rule to the personal rule of the

Messiah. The latter supercedes the former.

The emphasis on family. Jerry Falwell, as well as James Dobson and

Gary Bauer, focus on the family. The argument is that as the family goes, so goes the

nation. This seems to be putting a lot of eggs in one basket. Indeed, from a biblical

perspective, the emphasis placed on the family is overdone.

As I’ve argued above, the locus of God’s strategy for mankind is the

Messianic Kingdom. Jesus made this abundantly clear. The Gospels characterize His

early preaching of repentance as based on the presence of the Kingdom of God.68 The

rationale for repentance was not the family but the presence of the Kingdom.

Moreover, the litany of sins identified as “anti-family” are nowhere so

identified in the Bible. Rather, they are all evidence of a refusal to accept God’s personal

rule and reign in life.

Ultimately, Jesus believed that nothing would or could prevail against His

Kingdom.69 While none would doubt that families are in crisis, the continued existence

of the nation doesn’t turn on it.

The sum of the matter. Taking the criticisms offered as a whole, there

seems to be a strongly anthropological thread in the Christian Right tapestry.

68Matthew 4:17; Mark 1:14-15.

69Matthew 16:18.
 The Judeo-Christian ethic, wittingly or unwittingly, jettisons the Holy

Spirit and the Covenant. Policies enacted on the Judeo-Christian model appear to be

enough to right the listing ship of state.

The polarization of kingdoms, with different rules for each, seems to

demote the Messianic Kingdom to level status with the kingdoms of men.

The focus on the family surrenders the crux: the presence of God’s

Kingdom. The fear seems to be that if the family goes, all else in culture go with it.

In sum, the bases for political activism as well as the model for political
policy strongly smacks of anthropocentrism. There may be more idolatry here than meets
the eye.