Early in 1984, after the Rev. Jerry Falwell had taken out full page “anti-freeze” (nuclear) ads in big city papers across America, I wrote in the local paper, “Praise God for Jerry Falwell.” I went on to say that I stood “shoulder to ankle” (my shoulder to his ankle) with this modern prince of so-called “fundamentalism.”

Am I in a good position to survey Dr. Falwell’s ministry and render an objective judgment? The reader will have to judge. Our family has now lived in Lynchburg (VA) for three years. It’s hard not to be a “Falwell watcher” when one is that close. Whenever we travel to other locales, people are quick to ask me what my evaluation is of the man. My well-worn answer is that “the more he talks about politics, the more we agree, and the more he talks about religion, the more we disagree.”

In a worldly sense, any such judgment of mine is to be “devalued.” I am a pastor in the OPC, and one could put my whole church (including the dogs!) into one of Dr. Falwell’s closets! Most of his considerable Sunday School classes (even the ones which aren’t doing so well) are larger than my church. So, in this land where “bigger is better,” I am of very little consequence.

But we have a more momentous perspective which is from the Word of God. It is the Word of God which is strong. When the Lord “lifts His Voice, Earth melts” (Ps 46:6). When we try to evaluate Dr. Falwell’s ministry by God’s word, my earlier aphorism is useful from two perspectives. On the one band it serves as a useful foil so that our differences are not glossed over. But on the other, it shows where we have some real agreement. Let us deal with the differences first, and then consider our areas of common interest.

Areas of Difference

In evaluating Dr. Falwell “religiously,” it is obvious that he could never gain membership in our presbytery! He is a Baptist (pronounced locally “Babdist”) through and through, and wouldn’t have it any other way. While I hold out great hope for his opinions in heaven (when we’ll all be reformed!) I am realistic enough to know that we differ presently.

Subscribers to the Outlook who have seen Falwell’s services on television should note contrasts immediately. Fundamentalism is on a different “wave length” in terms of the Regulative Principle of Scriptural Worship. There is not the same interest in a deep excursion into the Word of God in the sermons, and a reverential awareness of the Holiness of God does not form the context of their worship.

Instead of worship services, they hold “preaching services.” Such manmade contrivances breed inconsistency. Preaching services are somehow not under the above restrictions of Scripture. The congregation is involved in very little singing . The Calvinistic emphasis on worship through song is mainly fulfilled by the trained choirs. And of course, the altar call, that fundamentalist “mark of the church” sine qua non, is an institution. Almost any commitment in the church (eg. signing up as a bus driver) is “sanctified” through the altar call system. Indeed, in some ways, the altar call is the only sacrament of fundamentalism, in the sense of there being a real “means of grace.”

Individualism and Arminianism are also strong. The fundamental churches tend to major in personality. Popular preachers are accorded license which commoners are not. For example, it is called “Preacher’s license” when catchy pulpit tales are told as if they actually took place in the teller’s life. Churches are constructed upon the dynamism of such charisma almost overnight, but they often disintegrate just as quickly when the pastor errs or sins in a grievous way that cannot be covered over.

Dr. Falwell has circumvented some of these pitfalls with his organizational gifts and strength of personality. He seems to have collected, early on, a gifted and committed staff. Like President Reagan, he delegates authority well. Liberty Baptist College is a testimony to Falwell’s ability to attract quality people and weld them into a team. In this sense, the organization is able to cover for inherent flaws.

Areas of Common Interest

But let us turn to our agreements, namely “politics.” Fundamentalism came to a rude awakening a few years ago with the abortion program of liberalism. Many Americans of like –mind had perceived that they could ignore politics without apparent major consequence. Then the babies began to be slaughtered!

Similarly, liberalism stepped up its program for persecuting the church. This program is as old as the “enmity” which divided the seed of the woman from the seed of the serpent. But many Christians failed to apply this theological truth in society. Rocking the boat, by introducing divisive Biblical categories was not in vogue.

Some still sleep in this Anabaptist slumber. Like their spiritual forbears, they restrict the rule of Christ to their innermost pious feelings. Ironically (and I’m sure Falwell understands this) at the point of political involvement, Jerry is more Calvinistic than many card-carrying Calvinists. (As an aside I might add how encouraging this is, for it shows God’s power to unite the church over seemingly impossible gulfs.)

But, as intimated, Falwell was awakened by the clash of satan’s assault. He took a ministry that was founded on a restricted understanding of evangelism, and incorporated the idea of the Christian’s responsibility toward the state.

I like to say that Falwell got the fundamentalist wagon of political involvement rolling downhill, but realized he didn’t know what to do with it. As he passed by, he grabbed various Calvinistic pedestrians and pulled them onto the wagon. Men like Francis Schaeffer, John Whitehead, and Rousas Rushdooney have been heavily depended upon for the intellectual basis necessary for such a movement.

This is the point at which I stand “shoulder to ankle” with Dr. Falwell. Any man that puts his reputation on the line for the honor of Christ , must be a friend of mine. His activism has cost him some friends. Just recently, Dr. Curtis Hutson, publisher of the Sword of the Lord (i.e. the N.Y. Daily News of fundamentalism) withdrew from Falwell‘s Moral Majority organization, and asked Jerry to resign from the board of the Sword.

So, Dr. Falwell is willing to pay a price. He has also become the focal point of humanism’s hatred and vituperation. They understand that while some of the rest of us talk and carry on in our denominational magazines, Falwell, with his organizational abilities, can cause them real harm. So they heap abuse on him.

How can a genuine Christian not appreciate a man like that? Do we really believe that all of creation, namely mayors and governors, as well as “sea monsters and all deeps” (Ps 148:7), are to praise the Lord? Or do we believe that they are magically outside the veil of God’s sovereignty?

Do we really believe that “the wrath of God is upon all such unrighteousness” (Rom 2:2) as our culture lusts after; or do we pretend that that judgment which began with our first parents, and has henceforth been extended to all successive ungodly cultures, will inexplicably pass us by? Many Christians are blind to these Biblical “ABC’s.” But I cannot be. And I sense a real camaraderie with those who in a visible way, are committed to stand by the Lord in this hour of trial.

There is a second reason for supporting Falwell, in spite of various disagreements . And that is that there is a scale of significance to such conflicts. I feel that Arminianism is heretical and will weaken anything that it touches. But personally, I am convinced that in our present age, socialism and statism are greater dangers.

While all heresies contain within them the seeds of death each generation seems to face certain heresies which are in ascendancy and threaten the very life of the church. Are not socialism, statism, and their first born–Marxism, such threats? Though their most blatant maneuvers have not taken place in church courts, the latter should not shrink from identifying these movements as major heresies. They are part of that long succession of history’s idolatrous whores.

Jerry Falwell, like Dr. D. James Kennedy of PCA fame, is aware of this, and has set his course against it. All those who consider these the dominant idolatries will make common cause with Falwell.

Limited Cooperation

But when we make common cause, we ought to be “wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” We cannot gloss over our differences, or pretend they are not important. The naive might “mortgage the house” on some politician or personality, but Calvinists (of all people) ought to understand the frailty of human nature.

At this point, fundamentalists are standing with one foot on the Bible and the other on human opinion. I do not see them relying wholeheartedly on the Scriptures. They do not yet really have a reformed understanding of the Law of God. They tend to be antinomian (cf. from their dispensational past), even as they reference their indictments of humanism with the Scriptures.

Falwell’s local detractors are sometimes shocked when I tell them that I am “more conservative” than Jerry! What I mean by that is that while fundamentalism has walked halfway through the Bible, Calvinism has gone all the way!

An example of this is the make-up and goals of the Moral Majority. They are not specifically “Christian” or Biblical. In many ways she is an alliance for morality, vaguely conceived. She is inconsistent. Sometimes she stands on God’s law, and sometimes she doesn’t. On the issue of Abortion, she stands tall and says, “Thus sayeth the Lord.” But on “censorship,” the position is more political than Biblical.

Cal Thomas, one of the Moral Majority leaders, has said in his work, Book Burning, that Christians just want equal time. They don’t want censorship of non–Christian books, just a libertarian position for Christian books. Now while this is the wisest course politically, it is not the wisest Biblically. Christians should be for censorship of all ungodliness, Biblically defined. And while a transitional position of accommodation, wherein Christians at least got equal treatment, might be wise, we should never give up the high ground that is the position of the Word of God.

I have to laugh when people find the above irritating. l ask them about heaven. Is there going to be censorship in heaven? The answer is, “Yes,” and the reader had better be glad fo r such censorship, or he won’t be there! Are we not to bring heaven, like the kingdom of God , to earth? Falwell, and the Moral Majority are often half-way between the two places, trying to find the “golden mean.” They want a degree of heave n on earth but cannot pray wholeheartedly, “Thy (whole) kingdom come!”

But they are half–way there or more. And half–way is better than “no-way.” As I said earlier, many evangelicals (much less errant Calvinists) are “no–way.” They are twittering about how spiritually warm they feel, even as the devil tries to slip a garrote over their heads! This is my analysis, strongly put, and error–prone as it may be. In most local conflicts I do all that I can to advance the cause of Christ. Usually that means that I agree with Dr. Falwell & Co. I have found delight in this fraternity because in many, many ways, it is the brotherhood of Christ.