Jerry Falwell Jr. is the son of one of the 20th Century’s most influential evangelists. The effects of Jerry Falwell Sr.’s brand of Christianity is still seen today in the age of Trump. In fact, it seems tailor-made for Trump’s eventual rise where he managed to capture the hearts and minds of hundreds of thousands of evangelicals, despite his *questionable* moral character.
“Tailor-made” in the sense that in order to be a Trump evangelical, one has to selectively edit the Bible so that it doesn’t conflict with the Trump ethos — which applies to everything, including adulterous fornication.
Falwell Jr. is either becoming quite adept at that skill or he’s just a bad scholar, and a lot of folks are saying the latter in a Twitter thread that’s vomiting beneath his latest attempt to square the story of Jesus with Trump’s policies.
You nuts attacking @realDonaldTrump for securing the border need to show me where Jesus told Caesar how to run Rome. Jesus taught personal charity but went out of His way to say render unto Caesar that which is his. Jesus never told Caesar to let barbarians illegally enter Rome.
— Jerry Falwell (@JerryFalwellJr) March 9, 2019
In his tweet fired off Friday night, Falwell slammed critics of Trump’s long-promised border wall, saying that even Jesus didn’t tell Caesar “how to run Rome.”
“Jesus taught personal charity but went out of His way to say render unto Caesar that which is his,” Falwell tweeted. “Jesus never told Caesar to let barbarians illegally enter Rome.”
In the comments, people immediately began suggesting bible passages for Falwell to read.
Jerry, have you even ever read the Bible you pretend to clutch so closely? Start with Matthew 25:35.
— Brooke Binkowski (@brooklynmarie) March 9, 2019
https://twitter.com/fieryreddragon/status/1104343384884416512?s=21
Others reminded Falwell that if Jesus’ was as subservient to Roman law as he alleges, it didn’t have an ideal result.
You should maybe try actually reading your holy book, Jerry.
Spoiler: it doesn't work out so well for Jesus. https://t.co/zMPdCdF0Nl
— Stonekettle (@Stonekettle) March 9, 2019
1. rome killed jesus
2. jesus was critical of roman occupation and of those who served rome
3. the sacking of rome happened several hundred years after jesus, so the barbarians thing is nonsensejesus never spoke directly to caesar, but there isn't roman sympathy in his message https://t.co/e5Zq3IUEjq
— too big a sip of water (@rhymeswithstan) March 9, 2019
And then there’s the conservative principle of “small government.”
https://twitter.com/Tom4CongressNY6/status/1104432265243869184
According to Washington Times editor Ken Shepherd (full disclosure: he’s a friend of mine), Falwell’s proclamation seems to trap Christians into believing they’re potentially sinning if they oppose Trump.
Doesn't this suggest that a Christian disagreeing with the president on border security policy is sinning by having objections to the president's policy? … https://t.co/7mXxD6kf1e
— Ken Shepherd (@KenShepherd) March 9, 2019
…It seems to suggest, at least, that ANY Christian voter's objection must be based on scriptural principle, not mere prudential judgment. After all, plenty of people who oppose the president on it as a policy judgment are NOT trying to bring Jesus/moral law into the argument.
— Ken Shepherd (@KenShepherd) March 9, 2019
In fact, constitutional conservatives who happen to be Christians have raised concerns not on holy writ but on issues of the proper limits of constitutional authority for a president, and/or on upholding Congress as the proper branch for appropriating monies.
— Ken Shepherd (@KenShepherd) March 9, 2019
Falwell’s revision of Christian principles to fit the Trump gospel is nothing new. In January, an interview he gave to The Washington Post drew backlash after he suggested that Christians shouldn’t have to consider a person’s moral character when it comes to electing a president, even hinting that evangelicals who reject Trump may be bringing their own morality into question.
“It may be immoral for them not to support him because he’s got African American employment to record highs, Hispanic employment to record highs,” Falwell said. “They need to look at what the president did for the poor. A lot of the people who criticized me, because they had a hard time stomaching supporting someone who owned casinos and strip clubs or whatever, a lot them have come around and said, ‘Yeah, you were right.’”
The Post’s Joe Helm then asked Falwell if it’s “hypocritical for evangelical leaders to support a leader who has advocated violence and who has committed adultery and lies often.”
Not at all, Falwell replied.
“I don’t think you can choose a president based on their personal behavior,” he said.
“Because even if you choose the one that you think is the most decent — let’s say you decide Mitt Romney. Nobody could be a more decent human being, better family man,” he continued. “But there might be things that he’s done that we just don’t know about. So you don’t choose a president based on how good they are; you choose a president based on what their policies are.”
“That’s why I don’t think it’s hypocritical.”
Featured image via screen grab/Fox News
