Wednesday, May 16, 2007

The Rev. Jerry Falwell, a Real Man.

The Rev. Jerry Falwell, a real man.

He had the guts to stand for the true Gospel, the USA and the Second Amendment.

In my youth I and my brothers embraced and admired Jerry Falwell for his boldness and uncompromising single-mindedness in communicating the Gospel every time he was given the national spotlight. Too bad Joel Osteen never learned to do the same.

Today the youth are embracing Rob Bell. How far we have fallen! I can't help but compare the two. Rev. Falwell had his flaws, but he never saw them as virtuous. Rev. Falwell embraced black and white doctrinal clarity as opposed to "embracing mystery" as Rob Bell does.

Oh yeah, let's not forget, Rev. Falwell never neglected to warn people about hell. This he did out of love. He boldly stood against abortion and the practice of the homosexual life style. Unlike the Emergents who don't believe in a literal hell, who totally overlook abortion, and never in a million years would dare speak a negative word against the sinful lifestyle of sodomy!

Many in the Emerging Church and their leaders, like Brian McLaren and Tony Jones, actually believe that God uses homosexual-practicing people as leaders in the church. Rev. Falwell clearly said on many occasions that homosexual acts were sinful and those who do so must repent of their sin. Simple and clear.

I for one, am grateful for the boldness and faithfulness to the Gospel of men like Rev. Falwell. He will be missed. Do we need more REAL MEN like Jerry Falwell? I say without a doubt we do!

-Keith Oliver

14 Comments:

Anonymous Rita said...

Amen, Amen and AMEN!!! Well done to a good and faithful servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. Absent from his body and present with his Lord!

8:55 PM  
Anonymous chris said...

it seems to me that your god is quite small. i'm thankful God is who he says he is and not who you have portrayed him to be.

10:00 PM  
Blogger Steve said...

Well said, Keith.

10:29 AM  
Blogger Patrick said...

I'm afraid I had a lot of problems with Falwell - from getting caught fabricating material on his Clinton expose, to at one time supporting segregation, to holding gays, abortionist, feminists, non-Christians, and the ACLU partly responsible for 9/11.

And then there's this quote:

"This 'turn the other cheek' business is all well and good but it's not what Jesus fought and died for. What we need to do is take the battle to the Muslim heathens and do unto them before they do unto us."

I have no problem with fighting terrorism - but to say Jesus' death is in some way related to our right to defend ourselves seems like a pretty grave, self-serving, overly-political misinterpretation of scripture.

I'm sure he probably did some good in the world, but I can't really hold him up as someone I looked up to.

11:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Give me Jerry Falwell over any of these new emergents that are roaming the church today.
Here is a man who always gave the gospel when on T.V. and radio. He didn't pander to anyone or try to be politically correct.
God made men to be strong, tough and rough when needed not to give in when the pressure starts coming. There are too many weak men in the church . In churches today men are afraid to give their opinion and speak up about almost anything.. I think that is why there are way more women in the church than men. I mean who wants to go to a church where women are leading everything and the services are like Oprah!
When I heard Falwell speak/preach it was always refreshing , he called a spade a spade... called sin sin and I believe that's why people don't like him.
Thank God for examples like Falwell.
When it was time to fight the good fight you know Jerry Falwell was one man you could count on. Who would you rather be in a fox hole with Jerry Falwell or Brian McLaren?
Enough said.
Mike O.

12:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Patrick,
Was Falwell less credible than Rob Bell?
HK

12:34 AM  
Blogger Patrick said...

HK,
I don't know. I've only read one of Bell's books and seen a couple of his videos. I didn't see anything in those pieces that bothered me as much as Falwell lying about Clinton and blaming 911 on folks he disagrees with - or trying to use Jesus' death on a cross to justify the war. It's possible that Bell has opinions that would damage his credibility with me, though. I just haven't been exposed to enough of his beliefs.

What about you? Do you find Falwell more credible than Bell? How do you feel about the stuff I mentioned about Falwell?

8:57 AM  
Blogger Phil Perkins said...

Keith and Patrick,
I was in junior high and high school when Falwell became nationally known. He was hated because he said promiscuity and homosexuality are wrong. Another person who said homosexuality is wrong was Anita Bryant. She was a former pop singer. At the time she was doing commercials for Florida Orange Juice, I believe. She made her stand, Falwell made his stand, and the news media went nuts.

Now this was at a time when most of America in the streets saw sodomy for what it was--a disgusting perversion.

Interestingly, virtually all Evangelical pastors and leaders either said nothing about these two or gave sermons in which these two were portrayed as bigots. They were "unloving." The best offered no support. The worst helped the world stone them.
God will repay.

And the cowardice was so stupid. Most in the pews would have supported the pastors that agreed with Falwell. Instead, the puplits came alive with relevance and God-is-luuv-and-not-much-else bologna. I think many of those pastors (and many today) were obsessed with being like "wise" women of the Phil-Donahue-Oprah-Winfrey-Alan-Alda-Jimmy-Carter type. If this was happening today, perhaps, their insurance would cover the surgery and they could be much happier.

Also, interesting is the fact that those preachers unwilling to preach against sin or to associate with those who do also contend, like Patrick, that God would never judge us--a mark, by the way, of many of the false prophets of old. On the other hand, the Spirit of God, through the prophet Amos told us just how stupid what such a contention is by comparing it to similar stupid ideas: Hear this word which the LORD has spoken against you, sons of Israel, against the entire family which He brought up from the land of Egypt: "You only have I chosen among all the families of the earth; Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities." Do two men walk together unless they have made an appointment? Does a lion roar in the forest when he has no prey? Does a young lion growl from his den unless he has captured something? Does a bird fall into a trap on the ground when there is no bait in it? Does a trap spring up from the earth when it captures nothing at all? If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?

Cowardice in the pulpits and the accompanying denial of God's judgment is nothing new. It is hideous and we ought not abide such nonsense. "Men" of God trembling at being hated by the world, while a woman is being verbally ravaged and a brother is being slandered. No excuse. How could they be so cowardly that they could not even speak the truth in their own congregations where they are supported to the hilt? Where do we find these wimps? Big booming voices on the outside, Pee Wee Herman on the inside.

And, yes, Falwell did some sins. Cowardice is just not one of them. (Read David's eulogy to Saul.)

So, Keith, I concur. We need real men.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

12:35 PM  
Blogger Patrick said...

Couple of things:

1. Who's Keith? I've seen two comments in this thread address "Keith" but I can't find any comments by him. Am I missing something?

2. Phil said, "Also, interesting is the fact that those preachers unwilling to preach against sin or to associate with those who do also contend, like Patrick, that God would never judge us--a mark, by the way, of many of the false prophets of old."

Where did I contend that God would never judge us? I don't think I've said anything like that. Am I misremembering? Can you show me what you're refering to?

1:30 PM  
Blogger Kennyo said...

Keith is the one who wrote the post

1:33 PM  
Blogger Patrick said...

I see that now... right there at the bottom of the post... where nobody but me could miss it... I'm dumb.

2:21 PM  
Blogger Hank said...

Patrick,
I had not heard the lie about Mr. Clinton so I can not even speak to it. I would like to hear the context. As for the comment about the reason for 911. One does not have to stretch too far to say the blame has in part to be passed on to the reaction of a radical Muslim to contemporary Western ideas of morality. Bin Ladin has been quoted as to having railed against that lifestyle and making threats against the society that is in his thoughts, is too perverse to stand. I am convinced the nation that confuses mercy with condoning sinful behavior will eventually destroy itself. The question as too whether I am more enamored by Falwell or Bell is irrelevant to me. I find Christ far too compelling to place such confidence in either. To me the measure of a leaders success is the extent to which Christ is honored by their life. I will quote as I have before the verse from Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, And prudent in their own sight! I am confused that you have protected Mr. Bell while having judged Mr. Falwell. Your first and last statements about him were no less imprecating than any of the statements the Oliver boys have used to describe some of the emergent leaders. I do not say Falwell is better of worse. Sin is sin and all of us will fall if we become proud and feel we are righteous in ourselves. Jesus scolded the disciples after His resurrection for not having believed all the Scriptures had said about Him. He soundly reprimanded the pharisees for their ignorance in not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God. I am very uncomfortable when leaders soft step the damage sin has on others.
HK

12:26 AM  
Blogger Patrick said...

Falwell's Clinton video featured reporters who had supposedly reported on some of Clinton's misdeeds. The reporters were speaking in shadows because they said they were in fear for their lives. It was later admitted that it was actually the video's producers pretending to be reporters and they had no information to indicate that Clinton had threatened any reporter's lives - and that it was Falwell's idea.

You're right to say Bin Laden's actions were his response to western ideas of morality. Besides the ideas Falwell mentioned, Bin Laden also hated democracy, civil rights, and equality between the sexes. Ultimately Bin Laden's disproportionate response can only be blamed on him. Dolling out blame to the various ideas and lifestyles that emerge in a free society is pretty pointless - since that's the nature and purpose of freedom in the first place.


I like your answer to the question of whether or not you're more enamored with Bell or Falwell, but I didn't ask you which you were more enamored with. I asked you the same question you asked me - which do you find more credible? Those are pretty different questions.

As to the rest of your post, I don't think I have protected Bell. The few specific comments I've responded to in relation to Bell have been to say that quoting Richard Gere does not equal endorsing his viewpoints. I would have made that same argument regardless of who was doing the quoting.

I don't know enough about Bell to say whether he was someone I would look up to or not. What I do know about Falwell leads me to determine he's not the kind of leader I look up to. Like you, I judge leaders by how well they honor Christ with their lives (but realize we all fall down in this regard) but also by a various other standards. In the final analysis, Falwell didn't live up to enough of those standards for me to say he's someone I admired.

I don't begrudge our host for having his own standards for judging this sort of thing as well. I do assume that by posting them on a blog and leaving his comment section active that he's inviting conversation and debate - which is all I've ever tried to give back.

5:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Patrick,
I appreciate your words and heart. I can not and do not justify a lie. It would be relevant I think to view a documentary done by Larry Nichols and Charles Phillips called the Clinton Chronicles which may have insighted him to produce this film the way he did. I can not evaluate his intent as duplicitous or otherwise from what you said only. I must confess I am prejudiced in favor of those who are Biblical inerrantists. Not because I know them personally, but because I too am an inerrantist and I view a huge part of the battle over good and evil as the battle over the truth of the Bible. I believe the Roman Church's greatest error was it's elevation of church traditions to equal footing with the Scriptures. I must confess a belief that the Old Testament is part of the Scriptures and is completed in the New. I hear statements coming out of the emergent community, such as "God does not know the future or Christ is in all men, we just need to find Him there." Romans 8:9, "But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." seems to indicate not all have Christ in them and Hebrews 13:8, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.", seems to say God does not change. If His knowledge increases over time is he not increasing or changing? Are these men not teaching the doctrines of men as if they are doctrines of God? I do not have confidence in men who would share God's glory with men. Isaiah 42:8, "I am the Lord, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images." and John 17:24 "Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world." both indicate that God will not share His glory and that Christ is part of that glory. I suspect you would be in agreement with these concepts. If Mr. Bell and some of these other leaders are teaching concepts that deny these, then I can not respect them or their teaching. As for Mr Falwell, if he lied and intended to deceive the Lord will deal with Him. Thank God that those who trust in Jesus have Him as their righteousness.
Hank

8:21 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home