Liberty University president Jerry Falwell, Jr., caused quite the internet kerfuffle following an interview with The Washington Post in which he said there’s nothing President Donald Trump could do to jeopardize his support among evangelical voters.
When Post reporter Joe Heim asked Falwell if there’s “anything President Trump could do that would endanger that support from you or other evangelical leaders,” the 56-year-old lawyer simply replied, “No.”
What did he say about Trump?
“Only because I know that he only wants what’s best for this country, and I know anything he does, it may not be ideologically ‘conservative,’ but it’s going to be what’s best for this country, and I can’t imagine him doing anything that’s not good for the country,” Falwell added after Heim pressed him.
The Liberty leader stood by Trump, even in regard to the Republican president’s past promiscuity. Falwell told Heim, “When Jesus said we’re all sinners, he really meant all of us, everybody.” He went on to say he doesn’t advocate people choosing a president “based on their personal behavior.”
‘A Personal Attack’: Franklin Graham Responds to Facebook Banning His Page
Falwell made his case by arguing incoming Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) is a “decent man” and a “family man,” “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,” Falwell explained. “You choose a president based on what their policies are. That’s why I don’t think it’s hypocritical.”
What did he say about the poor?
In his defense of the president’s political and economic policies, Falwell claimed it’s not hypocritical for a Christian to stand by Trump because there are “two kingdoms” in this world.
“In the heavenly kingdom, the responsibility is to treat others as you’d like to be treated,” he explained. “In the earthly kingdom, the responsibility is to choose leaders who will do what’s best for your country.”
Hero Clemson QB Delivers Stunning Faith-Filled Message At Post-Game Presser
Falwell then said the U.S. has led the world because of its commitment to “free enterprise, freedom, ingenuity, entrepreneurism and wealth.” To make his point, the college president said, “A poor person never gave anybody charity, not of any real volume. It’s just common sense to me.”
What is the reaction to his comments?
Stephen Gutowski, a staff writer for The Washington Free Beacon, said of Falwell that he “can’t imagine a worse ambassador for Christianity.”
Pro-tip when you say you'll literally follow a politician regardless of absolutely anything they may say or do in both their personal and political lives, you've given up any theoretical influence you may have had on them. pic.twitter.com/mZWnRv6QlG
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) January 1, 2019
I wonder how Falwell plans to reverse course on all this once a Democrat is President again. Does he think he can squeeze the toothpaste back into the tube at this point?
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) January 1, 2019
Falwell couldn't even give an answer that matches up with something Trump has actually pushed for like the wall or trade wars or pulling troops out of conflict zones or whatever. He said the deficit. It's amazing.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) January 1, 2019
Conservative Fox News analyst Brit Hume described Falwell as “a disappointing man” in a tweet responding to columnist Guy Benson, who rebuked Falwell for “demeaning the poor.”
Falwell is such a disappointing man. Does he not remember the impoverished woman in Luke 21, who gave a pittance, leading Jesus to say she had given more than the rich because she gave all she had?
— Brit Hume (@brithume) January 2, 2019
When a Twitter user challenged Hume for reading too much into Falwell’s comments, he pointed to the fact that Mother Teresa — who lived in relative poverty — was responsible for quite a bit of charity.
“Poor people don’t have the means to help anyone?” Would you say that applied to Mother Theresa?
— Brit Hume (@brithume) January 2, 2019
But he also belittles the charity of the poor as not “of any volume,” as if the dollar amounts matter more than the moral code that motivates people to give. Where does he think that comes from? Where do you?
— Brit Hume (@brithume) January 2, 2019
Of course he is, and that’s the problem. He thinks our wealth is the reason behind our generosity in the world. But that’s only part of it. It would mean little were it not for the values that motivate us to be generous. And where do that values come from? You figure it out.
— Brit Hume (@brithume) January 2, 2019
The crux of Hume’s argument is not that Falwell is incorrect about what monetary and material offerings the poor have at their disposal. Rather, the Fox News analyst pointed out that the reason for the country’s generosity isn’t because of its wealth, but because of its moral worldview.
As for Falwell, he hasn’t publicly responded to criticism other than to thank Heim for quoting him “so accurately” in the Post’s question-and-answer story.