Did Jimmy Carter Lose His Religion?

As was widely reported in the news media, on October 1 Jimmy Carter celebrated his 95th birthday, becoming the first U.S. President to reach that age. But has Jimmy lost his religion? In the last few months, I have repeatedly seen Facebook friends post the link to Carter’s article titled “Losing My Religion for Equality.” 

Jimmy’s Article

The linked-to piece with that title was, in fact, published on July 15, 2009, under Carter’s name by The Age, a daily newspaper that had been published in Melbourne, Australia, since 1854—and that article is still available online.

In April 2015, The Age reported that Jimmy’s article has been the highest rated story ever published on theage.com.au, having been viewed more than 1.9 million times—and it has been viewed many more times since then.

The Desmond Tutu Peace Foundation even published Carter’s article on their website in April 2017, erroneously indicating that it was a newly published piece.

Carter’s article has been viewed so many times on the Internet this year that in July Snopes.com reported on its veracity. Snopes correctly explained that even though “the letter is often shared along with the claim that Carter renounced his faith,” that “isn’t the case.”

Snopes continues, “While Carter rejected the notion that women were subservient and severed ties with the Southern Baptist Convention [SBC], he never turned his back on his own religion.” And he certainly didn’t lose his faith in God.

Accordingly, I think that surely the title of Jimmy’s article was written by the newspaper, not by him.

Jimmy’s Point

Back in 2000 Carter severed ties with the SBC—a matter that was widely reported (such as in the Oct. 21, 2000, article in the WaPo.) Nine years later in his article published in The Age, he said that severing those ties “was painful and difficult.”

In January 2008, I talked briefly with Jimmy at the New Baptist Covenant meeting in Atlanta—and I gave him a copy of my recently published book Fed Up with Fundamentalism. As introduced in my 9/25 blog posting, the eighth chapter dealt with the issue that he wrote about in his 2009 article.

(I would like to think that that chapter in my book was of help to him.)

Thus, I fully agree with him and the main point he made in The Age article: “Women and girls have been discriminated against for too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God.”

Carter later wrote a whole book about this matter: A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence, and Power (2014). The third chapter of that important book is “The Bible and Gender Equality,” and he explains his disagreement with the SBC—as well as his ongoing Christian faith.

Jimmy’s Reputation

Among most of us moderate/progressive Christians, Jimmy Carter is held in high regard. And even if some of us may think that he was not a great President, almost everyone agrees that he is the best ex-President the country has ever had.

I have been somewhat amazed, though, at how he is still criticized by conservative evangelical Christians (among others on the right, I assume). I sometimes see “friends” of my Facebook friends saying very negative things about Jimmy.

The two most cited reasons for criticism of Carter are his position on LGBTQ rights and his position on Israel. For those reasons, and perhaps others, his reputation among the Religious Right is not good—but for most of the rest of us, it is stellar.

Five years ago I posted a blog article wishing Jimmy a happy 90th birthday, and I am very glad that I can wish him a (belated) Happy Birthday again now. 

Still Fed Up with Fundamentalism’s View of Women

Although my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism, which currently I am (slightly) revising and updating, was published in 2007, much has changed little since then. For example, Al Mohler, whom I wrote about in the second chapter as one of four influential fundamentalist leaders from 1980 to 2005, continues to spout questionable views about women. 

The Issue of Submissive Wives

At the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting in 1998, an amendment titled simply “The Family” was added to the Baptist Faith & Message (BF&M). That amendment included the declaration that wives must submit to their husbands.

The report of the committee recommending the addition of the new article wrote, “A wife’s submission to her husband does not decrease her worth but rather enhances her value to her husband and to the Lord.”

The BF&M was then revised, for the first time since 1963, at the SBC’s 2000 convention. Mohler was one of the 15 members on the “Study Committee” that recommended the revisions, which included the 1998 amendment on the family.

Somewhat related is Mohler’s negativity through the years toward birth control—and his 8/27 podcast in which he declared that “to be human is to be a parent.” Perhaps there is a fairly close link between the emphasis on submissive wives and the “ideal” of women being kept “barefoot and pregnant.”

The position of submissive wives is upheld by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), which was formed in 1987 and has consistently forwarded the relationship between husbands and wives known as complementarianism.

The current president of CBMW is Denny Burk, a professor at Boyce College in Louisville. Al Mohler, who is the president of Boyce College (as well as of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), is a member of CBMW’s Council.

The questionable emphasis on complementarianism has been correctly challenged by Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE), a group begun early in 1988. In Women, Abuse, and the Bible (1996), an important book published by CBE, the author of one chapter stresses that the emphasis on the submission of wives can lead, and has led, to the abuse of women.

The Issue of Women Pastors

Not only do fundamentalists of the past and many conservative evangelicals of the present teach that women must be submissive in the home, they also generally hold that women must be subordinate in the church as well.

The revised BF&M 2000 (referred to above) also newly declared, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”

Moreover, earlier this year in a May 10 podcast, Mohler emphasized that not only can women not be pastors, “females should not preach from the pulpit on Sunday morning” (see Baptist News Global’s report here).

The issue of women preachers is a personal one with me, for many years ago I preached the ordination sermon for a Japanese woman (using Acts 2:17-18 as my text) and then for several years she served as my assistant pastor and then as co-pastor of the Fukuoka International Church.

The Case for Full Equality

For decades now, I have been a “feminist,” one who advocates the full equality of women—in the church and in the wider society. I have applauded the work of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, whose struggles for equality were opposed by conservative Christians, including women, before fundamentalism was called by that name.

I have also been a supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment, which still has not been ratified by the required number of states, partly because of the vigorous opposition by conservative, traditionalistic Christians such as Phyllis Schlafly and her ilk.

But surely, surely the time has come for full equality between men and women!

A Woman in the House

Currently, there are 83 women who serve in the United States House of Representatives. That is 19.1% of the 435 House members, and about 3/4 of those 83 are Democrats. There have not always been women in the House, however.

THE FIRST WOMAN IN THE HOUSE

Jeannette Rankin of Montana was the first female to serve in the U.S. Congress. In fact, it was 100 years ago this week that she became the first woman in the House.

Rankin was born in 1880 in Montana Territory, nine years before it became a state. In 1914, women’s suffrage was passed in both Montana and Nevada. They thus became the tenth and eleventh states to give women the right to vote.

Rankin had joined the suffrage movement in 1910 when she was working in an orphanage in Seattle. Partly because of her efforts, Washington voted for women’s suffrage in November of that year. 

Rankin then moved back to Montana, and in February 1911 she made her case for women's suffrage before the Montana legislature. That was the first time a woman had spoken to that body. It took until November of 1914, but then Montana also decided to allow women to vote.

Rankin decided to run in 1916 as a Republican for one of the two U.S. House of Representatives seats from Montana—and she won! In her first time to vote she voted for herself.

Rankin was introduced in Congress as its first female member on April 2, 1917.

THE FIRST WOMAN’S PACIFISM

On the very day she took office, Pres. Wilson addressed a joint session of Congress and urged a declaration of war against Germany, and on April 6 the vote went to the House.

Rankin was one of 50 representatives who voted against the American declaration of war—and she became the one most criticized for her negative vote.

Knowing she had little chance of being re-elected to the House, in 1918 Rankin ran for the Senate. However, she was unsuccessful. She was then no longer a member of Congress until her election in 1940 to serve once more as a Representative from Montana.

Soon, on Dec. 8, 1941, Congress voted once again on another declaration of war. Also, once again, Rankin voted against going to war—and this time she was the only one to cast a dissenting vote.

She was also once again widely maligned for voting against war. Here was the headline in one newspaper: 

Rankin, however, was consistently against war during her long lifetime.

In 1967, at the age of 87 and sixty years after first taking a seat in Congress, she organized the Jeannette Rankin Brigade, an organization that publicly protested against the Vietnam War.

Rankin died in 1973 at the age of 93.

WOMEN IN THE HOUSE NOW

The nation has moved considerably toward women’s equality since 1917—but many would argue not nearly far enough. Perhaps more women would mean a more peaceful country and a more peaceful world.

Not all women are against war the way Jeannette Rankin was. Still, there may be great truth in these words she spoke in 1925:

The work of educating the world for peace is a woman’s job, because men are afraid of being classed as cowards.

Maybe we should also agree with this statement: 

However, not all women are the same. I am not impressed by, nor a supporter of, the two women among the current eight U.S. Representatives from Missouri.

The women I want in Congress are people like Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who has served in the House since 1998--and like Jeannette Rankin, the first woman in the House.

Happy 90th Birthday, Jimmy!

The 39th President of the United States was born on October 1, 1924, so tomorrow is Jimmy Carter’s 90th birthday.

In spite of the many difficulties and widespread criticism during his presidency, he is the best ex-president the U.S. has ever had in terms of public service and contributions to world peace and justice.

It was fitting that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. And it is fitting that we, too, celebrate his birthday.

Carter was a one-term president, embarrassingly defeated by Ronald Reagan in 1980.

His defeat was due to many factors, such as rampant inflation that caused grave financial problems in the country, 53 Americans taken hostage in Iran and held for more than a year, and loss of support by the Religious Right.

Still, the Camp David Accords, a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, in September 1978 were a tremendous accomplishment.

Egyptian President Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Begin won the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize for those accords, but the agreement came about only because of Carter's indefatigable efforts.

It can be argued, though, that the biggest mistake Carter made while in the White House was his support of the Shah of Iran.

On New Year’s Eve in 1977, President Carter toasted the Shah at a state dinner in Tehran, calling him "an island of stability" in the troubled Middle East.

Just over one year later, the Shah fled his country because of the Iranian Revolution, and in February 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini returned after 14 years in exile.

Then, in November 1979, students in the Iranian Revolution overran the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took 53 hostages who were not released until the minute after President Reagan was inaugurated in 1981.

The Iranians didn’t forget Carter’s support of the Shah.

Since his presidency, Carter has authored numerous books. One of his most important, and most criticized, is “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” (2007).

Many strong supporters of Israel have been quite critical of that book. But in it Carter quite convincingly argues that the Palestinians have been mistreated greatly over the past 60 years.

It is a book that still needs to be widely read and seriously considered.

The documentary film “Jimmy Carter: Man from Plains” (2007) is mostly about Carter’s book tour following the publication of “Palestine” and about the controversy surrounding it.

Carter’s latest book, published earlier this year, is “A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence, and Power.” He writes in the introduction that “the most serious and unaddressed worldwide challenge is the deprivation and abuse of women and girls.”

Carter’s commitment to human rights and justice was a highly commendable aspect of his presidency, and he has continued that emphasis in all these years since he left office more than three decades ago.

The third chapter in Carter’s new book is “The Bible and Gender Equality.” It is a strong statement about how the Bible, rightly interpreted, supports the equality of men and women.

He also explains in this chapter how that issue is one of the main reasons he left the Southern Baptist Convention.

In most ways, Jimmy Carter is a rather “common” man. But he has had a remarkable life and has made great contributions to the world, both as the President of the United States and as a very active ex-president.

So regardless of your political position and your evaluation of Carter’s presidency, please join me in exclaiming, “Happy 90th Birthday, Jimmy!”

In Admiration of Malala

Last month Time magazine issued their new list of the 100 most influential people in the world. The youngest person on that list was Malala Yousafzai, who was born in July 1997.

You remember Malala: she is the Pakistani girl shot in the head by a Taliban terrorist in October 2012. The short 4/23 Time article about Malala was written by Gabrielle Giffords, the former congresswoman from Arizona who, as you also remember, was shot in the head in January 2012.

Giffords begins her article, “Like millions around the world, I draw strength from brave Malala’s example.”

In addition to the recognition by Time, Malala has received many other notable accolades. Last year, for example, she was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, the youngest person ever to be nominated for that prestigious honor. She was nominated again in February of this year.

Also, last year on her sixteenth birthday she spoke at the United Nations, calling for worldwide access to education. The U.N. dubbed the event “Malala Day.” It was her first public speech since the attack on her in 10/12. It was a great speech, which you can listen to here.

Born in the Swat Valley of northwest Pakistan, Malala’s story is appealingly told in her book “I Am Malala: The Girl Who Stood Up for Education and Was Shot by the Taliban.” It was published in October of last year and soon was near the top of the bestselling non-fiction books.

Next Wednesday is the monthly meeting of the local group known as Vital Conversations. June and I are looking forward to the discussion of “I am Malala.” It is a fascinating book, very well written with the help of Christiana Lamb, an award-winning British journalist.

Malala is an amazing young woman—and she has an amazing father. Reading the book not only greatly increased my appreciation for her, but for her father as well.

In 1996 Ziauddin Yousafzai (b. 1969), Malala’s father, founded the Khushal School (for both girls and boys). His progressive ideas, and wholehearted support of his daughter, influenced Malala significantly. Of course, he suffered greatly after the attempt on her life, thinking that he is the one who led her into harm’s way.

Malala in many ways seems to be a devout Muslim. However, she is also quite critical of not only Islamists (Muslim fundamentalists) but also of some traditional aspects of Islam—especially the traditional ways women were/are treated/mistreated.

Her criticism of Islamist treatment of women is similar to the way many Christian feminists, including yours truly, are critical of much of the traditional discounting of women in Christianity.

Malala’s main emphasis through the years—from the time she was eleven she was writing (speaking) a blog for BBC Urdu—has been education for girls. In her book, Malala writes, “I don't want to be thought of as the ‘girl who was shot by the Taliban’ but the ‘girl who fought for education.’ This is the cause to which I want to devote my life.”

This week Malala has made appeals for the release of the Nigerian schoolgirls who have been abducted by Boko Haram. That appeal was on Time’s website, found here. She speaks out against the militant Muslims and for the Christian girls.

In her book Malala also quotes the well-known words of the Christian pastor Martin Niemöller.

Traditionalists/fundamentalists will continue to oppose Malala, but her outspoken words/actions for gender equality and for interfaith respect are surely on the right side of history. And I greatly admire what she has said and done.

The Benefits of Polygamy?

Opponents of same-sex marriage sometimes say, using the slippery slope argument, that recognition of such marriage would lead to approval of polygamy also. I have argued, correctly I think, that those are two completely separate issues and the slippery slope argument is not valid.

But recently I have thought more about the subject of polygamy and have, surprisingly, come to the conclusion that perhaps it should be legal in this pluralistic country. (Please note: neither I nor any man I know is wanting a second wife!)

There has been no legal polygamy (or even practice of polygamy with only a few exceptions) in the Western world for centuries. Perhaps to a large degree this been because of Christianity. But maybe there should be some provision for polygamy in the U.S. now.

As we know, there was widespread polygamy in the Old Testament, and because of that there have some instances of polygamy in Western history. For example, in the 1530s polygamy was practiced in Münster, (in what is now) Germany.

Under reforms made by Jan van Leiden, the self-proclaimed King of Münster, polygamy became mandatory because it was the practice of the Old Testament and thus sanctioned by God. (Also on a practical level the woman/man ratio was something like 3 or 4 to 1, so there was an overabundance of women in the city). Leiden would take 16 wives for himself.

There was also approval, in 1540, of the bigamous marriage of Philip of Hesse, one of the most important in 16^th century German political leaders. His taking of a second wife had the approval of some of the leading Protestant theologians of the day, including Martin Luther’s reluctant consent.

But still, in most “Christian” nations, bigamy/polygamy has overwhelmingly been recognized as being opposed to the teachings of Christianity and made illegal. And for good reason.

But there are other ways to look at the issue. I first glimpsed a benefit of polygamy when reading about Afghani women in A Thousand Splendid Suns (2007) by Khaled Hosseini (b. 1965), the Afghan-American novelist whose first book The Kite Runner (2003) was an overwhelming success.

In Hosseini’s second novel, also a bestseller, Rasheed is an Afghani man who takes a second wife, much to the dismay of Mariam, his first wife. But Rasheed was an increasingly abusive husband, and the two wives became close friends and mutually supportive in their resistance to their common “enemy.”

Then, I happened to come across a most interesting online article titled “Islam’s Position on Polygamy.” (This is on the website called www.IslamsWomen.com.) The article gives many reasons why the practice of polygamy is superior to monogamy. Let me share just one: 

Polygamy protects the interests of women and children in society. Men, in Western society make the laws. They prefer to keep polygamy illegal because it absolves them of responsibility. Legalized polygamy would require them to spend on their additional wives and their offspring. Monogamy allows them to enjoy extra-marital affairs without economic consequence.

(The same article also makes the following highly questionable assertion: “In the West today, most married men have extramarital relations with mistresses, girlfriends and prostitutes.”)

This posting is partly a response to comments toward the end of my 1/20/14 blog article, especially the one calling outlawing polygamy a “religious bias.” So, perhaps making some legal provision for polygamy is needed for the religious freedom of Muslims (and fundamentalist Mormons).

But are there sufficient benefits of polygamy that such should be legalized? I’m not convinced that there are. And is polygamy generally beneficial for women? Most probably not.