Perhaps in the furor of the recent presidential race, the latest action of former president, Jimmy Carter, went unnoticed. According to The Dallas Morning News of October 20th, he wrote a letter addressed “to my fellow Baptist,” which stated that “after 65 years, I can no longer be associated with the Southern Baptist Convention” (1A). His letter was to be mailed the same day this article was printed “to 75,000 Baptists nationwide” (1A). Some might consider it ironic that, in the midst of a close presidential contest, Mr. Carter was writing a letter about which faction among the Baptists he was supporting rather than campaigning for the Democratic nominee.
Those who think unity should be a top priority among religious people must wonder about this statement from the letter:
Like millions of other Baptists, I have been deeply distressed by the unpleasant and counterproductive divisions within our denomination (16A).
What? Divisions within the Baptists? Send them Max Lucado, Rubel Shelly, and all the Promise Keepers’ personnel; they should be able to fix anything. Pardon the sarcasm, but problems such as the Baptists are experiencing highlights the naivete of those who think all the denominational walls should come tumbling down. The reality is that walls are being built within denominations–and for good reasons. Battles are being fought within unauthorized religious organizations similar to the ones raging in the Lord’s church, and the cause of this division is liberalism. Some believe what the Bible teaches, and others have become more “sophisticated.”
President Carter is among the latter. Perhaps he did not originate it, but he is the first president that many of us remember saying, “I am personally against abortion, (or homosexuality), but I would never impose my morality on others.” This naive position allows the enemies of God to define “morality” and then impose their ungodly stances on the rest of us. Carter holds some sort of misguided notion that it is somehow noble to refrain from using the power and the influence of the presidency to establish laws that uphold and enforce morality (although no one seems to have any problem with laws against stealing and murder). Therefore, he could be personally against abortion but do nothing to oppose it. Some lauded this approach–the National Organization of Women, Planned Parenthood, etc. They knew such a cowardly view meant “business as usual.”
Laws aside, some “Christians” oppose what the Scriptures teach on homosexuality. God must have over-reacted in Genesis 19 and misstated His views under the Law of Moses (Lev. 20:13) and throughout the New Testament (Rom. 1:18-32; Jude 7). One wonders how the One who created our minds and formed our mouths could have miscommunicated with us so drastically. The Lord obviously meant to say that homosexuality is an equal, alternative life-style, since that idea is parroted by Hollywood actors, college professors, and popular advice columnists. Probably all those verses condemning the practice were either poorly translated or added later by homophobic editors. Of course such a position is absurd, but when someone rejects the Truth, any argument sounds good. The only qualification for a defense of error is handiness, not soundness.
On October 28th The Dallas Morning News published another article about the former president, entitled “Carter Affirms Gay Ordination.” People are still scratching their heads over this decision which he delineated the day after his “letter” was written.
Mr. Carter said he considers homosexuality a sin, but he does not oppose the ordination of gays (4G).
Hunh? What kind of twisted, tortured logic concludes that homosexuality is a sin but that a homosexual should be allowed to preach and be a representative of Christ? Carter supplies his rationale:
“If that person was demonstrating the essence of Christianity, I would not object to the individual being ordained,” Mr. Carter said. “Yes, homosexuality is a sin, but so is adultery. When somebody doesn’t give 10 percent of their earnings to the church, it is a sin. All of us are sinners every day. And adultery is a more serious sin than homosexuality” (4G).
It is truly amazing how much error can be taught in one paragraph. [Just as a political side point, according to Carter’s philosophy on this last statement, it would be an improvement to have a practicing homosexual in the White House, since we currently have an adulterer.] Objections to the former president’s reasoning are numerous.
First, anyone who has refused to repent of any sin cannot demonstrate the essence of Christianity. Such is a “sin unto death,” and John writes concerning one brother praying for another, “I do not say that he should pray about that” (1 John 5:16). When someone defies the Scriptures and determines to continue practicing a sin, it is useless even to pray for forgiveness for such an individual.
Second, how could a person who is practicing any sin preach to others? Has Carter never studied Paul’s admonition to Timothy, “Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believer in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity” (1 Tim. 4:12)? How can a practicing homosexual be an example in his conduct? Certainly, he does not walk in purity.
Third, how can he speak as the oracles of God (1 Peter 4:11)? What will he do when the congregation with which he works studies Genesis 19? How will he ever be able to preach on Romans 1 or the other New Testament passages that denounce homosexuality–either specifically or in principle–without feeling like a hypocrite? How can those who listen to him every week fail to feel violated and besmirched? Would a habitual liar make a good preacher? Is one who is in league with the devil (in any respect) fit to break the bread of life to others and to speak of the holiness and righteousness of God? It is sad that one who has taught the Bible for over 50 years could know so little about the contents of the Book or the One who authored it.
Fourth, apparently Carter thinks it would be equally acceptable to have an unrepentant adulterer for a preacher. [So do some brethren who have preaching for them one who is unscripturally divorced and remarried.] It must have escaped his notice that, when Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he mentioned that they had been practicing adulterers, fornicators, and homosexuals and that as such, they could not inherit the kingdom of God. Then he added: “Such were some of you” (1 Cor. 6:9-11). They gave up those things to become Christians; the Scriptures call it repentance. Without rejecting sin, people are lost (Luke 13:3).
Fifth, all of us sin every day, but not all of us are sinners every day. A sinner is one who practices sin and has no desire to give it up. A Christian is one who sins (usually unintentionally and without premeditation) and who regrets his behavior and repents of it.
Sixth, Why is adultery more serious than homosexuality? On what Scripture is that assertion based? What cities were destroyed by fire and brimstone because of adultery? When the Gentiles gave up God and God gave them up, they became so perverted they practiced homosexuality (Rom. 1:21-28). Adultery is a sin, but at least it involves a man and a woman (albeit the wrong man and woman), which is the way God created us. Homosexuality is a vile affection and perversion of sex. Both are wrong and in the same list of sins (1 Cor. 6:9), but the evidence indicates that homosexuality is far and away the more evil of the two–at least, as God views it.
It is lamentable that anyone would so flagrantly contradict the Scriptures for the purpose of inviting public acceptance of someone’s “right” to sin. No one has such approval from God. This is but another example of the power of “political correctness.”
When Carter says he believes in the separation of church and state, he means that government should not legislate on these moral issues, but then he turns around and says he “does not support legal approval of gay marriages” (4G). If government should not “impose morality,” then how can it not recognize homosexual marriages? The man is inconsistent.
To summarize the former president’s beliefs on this subject, he thinks homosexuality is a sin. But he argues that a practicing homosexual would make a good Baptist preacher. However, he would deny him the right to be legally married to another man. Can anyone follow this unmitigated confusion without its encroaching upon his sanity? The Bible is clear: Homosexuality is a sin that will keep a person out of the kingdom of God, but it can be forgiven WHEN repented of (1 Cor. 6:9-11). No one guilty of habitual sin has the right to preach to or teach others. Homosexual marriage is a ludicrous idea.
The other strenuous objection Mr. Carter has with the Southern Baptists is that he disagrees with this year’s restriction–that women not be preachers. His sister, Ruth Carter Stapleton, was an “evangelist.” The way he frames this issue (as well as the recent Baptist proclamation that women ought to be in subjection to their husbands) is to say that he believes in the equality of women–as if those who follow the Bible on this point somehow do not. The Holy Spirit is the one who wrote: “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord” (Eph. 5:22) and “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence” (1 Tim. 2:12). If these verses imply that men and women are not equal, then God is to be blamed rather than men, for He authored them. His quarrel is not with the Baptists, but with the Lord.
What Carter’s objections mean is that he is more swayed by the dictates of society than by the commandments of God. The Equal Rights Amendment was hotly debated during his administration. He tried everything within his power to get it passed, but it failed. [By the way, its wording would have allowed for homosexual marriages.] His sympathies still lie where they did twenty years ago. For him, allowing women to preach is a matter of equality. Like others, he has been impacted by “feminist” ideology, which would seek to impose its worldly will upon the spiritual realm.
What is interesting about Carter’s actions is that fallout that has occurred since his letter and statement. Society is supporting him in ways that should cause him to re-examine what he has said and done (although such is unlikely). Therefore, it will be worth our while to discuss the significance of this matter next week.