Jerry Falwell’s Wife on John McCain, Evangelical Voting | Newsweek Religion

Jerry Falwell's widow Macel remembers her husband in a new book, and wonders how the religious right is doing without him.

By Lisa Miller | Newsweek Web Exclusive

Jun 10, 2008 | Updated: 5:07 p.m. ET Jun 10, 2008

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

When the Rev. Jerry Falwell died a year ago at age 73, his obituaries were like the mixed reviews of a blockbuster movie. While acknowledging his power and influence—Falwell founded the Moral Majority in 1979 and was largely credited with mobilizing millions of conservative evangelicals to help elect Ronald Reagan in 1980—the obit writers had some difficulty coughing up the accolades that usually accompany a public figure's death. In life Falwell could be a bomb-thrower and a loudmouth, a man who made evangelical Christians seem to many in the mainstream world both mean-spirited and politically avaricious. "Jerry Falwell expressed great hate for a lot of his fellow Americans," wrote Alan Wolfe in Salon. "It is no wonder that so many of them will greet his death with something less than love."

Who better, then, to set the record straight than Falwell's own wife of 49 years and the mother of his three children, a sheltered Christian beauty named Macel? Her new book, "Jerry Falwell: His Life and Legacy," is poignant in its earnest defensiveness, a kind of "you don't know him like I know him" Christian memoir. Though boosted with blurbs from a who's who of social and religious conservative heavy hitters—James Dobson, Mike Huckabee, Franklin Graham, and Karl Rove—and introduced by right-wing talk show host Sean Hannity, the book is lightweight and probably of interest only to Falwell's followers. Mrs. Falwell's enduring grief at her loss, however, is real. She spoke with NEWSWEEK's Lisa Miller. (To read a first-person account by Macel Falwell, click here). Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: A year after his death, what do you wish people knew about Jerry Falwell?
Macel Falwell: I would like for the people who said the horrible things about him to know that they are not true, and I would like people to see what a great man he is, was. He was so wonderful with people. He would talk with them for five, 10 minutes and they would leave thinking they were his best friend.

But he's been called "an agent of intolerance." Can you explain why people would say that about him?
Why would they say it? He got before the world, and he told people what he thought. He might have been right or wrong, but he thought he was right or he wouldn't have said it. He said things that he probably would have in hindsight changed some.

After 9/11 he blamed the attacks on paganists, abortionists, feminists, gays and lesbians. This has not helped his legacy. Did he mean what he said?
I think it was such a horrible time … I think the whole nation was in shock. In hindsight Jerry would rather have said things a bit differently. But then again, everyone makes mistakes.

Your husband was largely credited with the formation of the religious right. Now people are saying that the coalition of conservative evangelicals is foundering. Do you agree?
Yes, definitely. Jerry spoke about and said things that he believed, and he had a gathering around him that thought the same way he did. Today they don't have a leader that would go out on a limb … If he were here, it would be different. (To read a first-person account by Macel Falwell, click here).

Do you think the "religious right" will be an important factor in November's election?
I'm not too well bred on this kind of stuff. Jerry didn't really bring problems home, so I don't really know a lot about it.

Have you thought about who you'll vote for in November?
I'll vote for McCain, for sure.

"The second two were also well thought out, but are matters of perspective than fact. In answer to your statement about some fantasy reward after death: while it is true that all you can see is that people's bodies go into the ground and decay, you cannot be so certain (and no one really can as far as we know) about whether or not they have a soul or get a reward or not. You cannot prove or disprove something you HAVEN'T seen; that flies in the face of "basic logic." "

You are welcome to think that there is something after death. But without irrefutable proof (and the burden lies with the affirmative, that there IS something after death), the negative is the default. That is what I have always be taught (and had confirmed by many top flight scientists, some of whom were devoutly religious). It is part of the same reason that the burden of proof lies with the those who say that God is a fact as opposed to belief. Of course it is not science's place to prove or disprove God or religion. That is why when someone says that I need to disprove God, I remind them that the burden lies with those who claim God, not with those who reject it. But that, IMO, I do nto care if they do or do not believe. Just that I demand they respect my right to disagree with them. I have no problem with people believing in God, or Jesus, or other religions as long as they do not try to force US laws to follow thoe beliefs. Especially since other religions often disagree on what "God" actually wants.

As for your final paragraph, wwJd? Is Die and Decay, like everybody else...clever :), but people who make that statement assume (maybe correctly, maybe not) that he is in some fashion still alive.. So a better question to ask yourself if asked this would be: What would Jesus do... if he were still alive? "

I actually do understand that distinction. And my answer would be: "Assuming that he actually even existed (which I am not sure about), and since he was supposedly a believing and practicng Jew, he would condemn those who worship him as blasphemers. As for what the writers of the books that the church decided to include as accept as valid, state that he said or stood for. I reject them completely so cannot make any assumption that they represnt what he wold have done or said.

"More importantly than this though, thanks for trying to do what is right for it's own sake. I wish everybody would do that. It'd make life a lot easier for everybody. Shalom."

Thank you.

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: WhiteValleyCreeper @ 06/17/2008 9:59:42 AM

I still remeber the "9-11 was the supported work of pagans, gays, lesbians, and liberal feminists" comment as if it were yesterday. I'm a 26 year-old Wiccan and I was deeply offended. This man SHOULD NOT be remebered as a holy person. The man should be remebered as a paranoid and bigoted preacher of intolerance...
A RELIGION WHOSE CREED SPREADS HATE IS NOT A RELIGION.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 06/17/2008 9:33:20 AM

"There are over 300 prophecies concerning Him in the Old Testament--including the way He would die,"

Actually, no there are not. Those alleged "prophesies" are intentional mistranslations of the Hebrew by his followers. The references that are quoted have be proven to be about others. Yes otherS. The TaNaKH (the correct term for the "old" testament) says absoutely nothing about Jesus.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 06/16/2008 2:40:46 PM

"The second two were also well thought out, but are matters of perspective than fact. In answer to your statement about some fantasy reward after death: while it is true that all you can see is that people's bodies go into the ground and decay, you cannot be so certain (and no one really can as far as we know) about whether or not they have a soul or get a reward or not. You cannot prove or disprove something you HAVEN'T seen; that flies in the face of "basic logic." "

You are welcome to think that there is something after death. But without irrefutable proof (and the burden lies with the affirmative, that there IS something after death), the negative is the default. That is what I have always be taught (and had confirmed by many top flight scientists, some of whom were devoutly religious). It is part of the same reason that the burden of proof lies with the those who say that God is a fact as opposed to belief. Of course it is not science's place to prove or disprove God or religion. That is why when someone says that I need to disprove God, I remind them that the burden lies with those who claim God, not with those who reject it. But that, IMO, I do nto care if they do or do not believe. Just that I demand they respect my right to disagree with them. I have no problem with people believing in God, or Jesus, or other religions as long as they do not try to force US laws to follow thoe beliefs. Especially since other religions often disagree on what "God" actually wants.

As for your final paragraph, wwJd? Is Die and Decay, like everybody else...clever :), but people who make that statement assume (maybe correctly, maybe not) that he is in some fashion still alive.. So a better question to ask yourself if asked this would be: What would Jesus do... if he were still alive? "

I actually do understand that distinction. And my answer would be: "Assuming that he actually even existed (which I am not sure about), and since he was supposedly a believing and practicng Jew, he would condemn those who worship him as blasphemers. As for what the writers of the books that the church decided to include as accept as valid, state that he said or stood for. I reject them completely so cannot make any assumption that they represnt what he wold have done or said.

"More importantly than this though, thanks for trying to do what is right for it's own sake. I wish everybody would do that. It'd make life a lot easier for everybody. Shalom."

Thank you.