Previously examined was former President Jimmy Carter’s letter to fellow Baptists, as well as his confusing position regarding homosexuals and whether they should be “ordained” as preachers or allowed to marry each other. Reactions have come in the wake of these pronouncements. A few have been rightly critical, but others have been complimentary. Some have seized this opportunity, however, to further bash those who believe in the Scriptures. We will review one “letter to the editor” and two syndicated columns; the reader should find instructive the techniques being used and take note of them.
On October 30th, a reader wrote to the editor of The Dallas Morning News: “I now have one more reason to admire Jimmy Carter.” [One wonders what the other reasons could be, since during his presidency inflation rose to double digits, interest rates were near 20%, and there was high unemployment.] The remainder of the letter is one long paragraph, an edited version of which follows:
I grew up in a very traditional Texas Southern Baptist Church. …I…learned there the importance of loving your neighbor, respecting the rights and opinions of others (even if you disagree) and how to seek truth. My pastor and my parents didn’t stick a Bible or the Baptist Faith and Message under my nose and say “this is what you will believe.” It was put upon me not only to listen, ask questions and pray for guidance–but to read, study and learn for myself. Within the Southern Baptist Convention today, if you disagree with the fundamentalist leadership–you are someone with whom the Southern Baptists “cannot maintain a relationship with” (12A).
Although we would not defend Baptist doctrine or the Southern Baptist convention, we are interested in the Biblical doctrines on which they have been challenged: those things relating to homosexuals, the role of women in the church, and the relationship of wives to their husbands. These doctrines are not of man–but of God. The person who wrote the letter reflects the spirit of this age, the “I-can-believe-anything-I-want-and-you-have-no-right-to-tell-me-I’m-wrong” philosophy.
She couches this notion with an appeal to respect other people’s opinions and to think for oneself, but where are these ideals praised in the Bible? The Holy Scriptures do not teach people to respect other’s opinions; they teach us to respect the Truth. Paul commanded brethren to be “perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). Although Paul did teach Christians not to bind their opinions upon one another, he expected conformity in matters of doctrine which had been clearly revealed.
It so happens that Paul wrote a definitive statement on all the things to which former President Carter objected. They are not matters of opinion but of New Testament doctrine. The one writing the letter to the editor, despite the high-sounding terminology, is attempting to change doctrine into opinion. And while each person needs to think for himself, the purpose of such an evaluation is to make certain that he has been taught and believes the Truth (Acts 17:11; John 8:31-32). The problem with Carter and the letter-writer is not that they do not know Truth; they do not want to accept the Truth.
Eugene Kennedy
This professor emeritus of psychology at Loyola University in Chicago wrote a column, titled “Carter’s Action Offers Lesson for All Churches,” which appeared in The Dallas Morning News on November 4th. Kennedy praises Carter for distancing himself from “increasingly rigid” Baptist teachings. This fawning over Carter translates to: “Since he has repudiated standing by what the Scriptures teach, he is a great guy.” When the Baptists conform to what the Bible teaches– 1) Women must submit themselves to their husbands (Eph. 5:22); 2) only men have the authority to preach (1 Tim. 2:12); and homosexuality is a sin, in which one cannot continue and be a Christian (1 Cor. 6:9-11)–then they are too “rigid.”
Kennedy’s advice is for the leaders of various churches to get in step with their members and not hold these harsh views; they should compromise instead–so that they can retain most of their flock:
What is new here is not that a sensitive and deeply religious person might differ with church officials but that it does not trouble him to reject their ideas and to remain in good conscience within the fold (3G).
In other words, when members of various groups do not agree with what their leadership says, they feel completely at liberty to believe whatever they wish. This attitude should make for some interesting conversations: “I’m a Baptist, but I don’t agree with certain things that Baptists believe and practice”; “I’m a Catholic, but I disregard what the pope says when I feel like it.” This attitude involves nothing more than setting oneself up as the judge of all things–or doing what is right in one’s own eyes (Judges 21:25). The problem with that approach is that we do not have the authority to judge such matters for ourselves. They shall be judged by Jesus (John 12:48).
Mr. Carter is prophetic because he bears the public pain of doing what untold thousands of Catholics have borne in private decisions to separate themselves from the opinions and influence of their bishops while continuing to practice their religion (3G).
In other words, many Catholics want to be part of the Catholic Church, but they reserve the right to disagree with their leaders whenever they feel like it. Yes, it is a fact that many Irish girls visit England to get an abortion and then return to Ireland to be good Catholics. Apparently, it does not occur to them that they cannot have it both ways–without being rank hypocrites. We in no way endorse the Catholic Church and have no desire to be part of it, but even non-Catholics understand that it is the duty of every Catholic to obey the pope because he is the head of their church. To them he speaks in the place of Christ; therefore, to disobey him (for them) is to disobey the Lord.
And Kennedy praises this rebellious spirit!
The American bishops are not, for the most part, trying to hear what their people are saying. They are straining to hear what they can do to please the pope, what flare of loyalty they can loft above their dioceses in hopes that someone in Rome will notice and write in the Vatican book of life and promotions (3G).
Apparently no authority resides in the Scriptures (1 Thess. 2:13); neither does any church hierarchy possess any (Heb. 13:17). Only people have that power. Perhaps Mr. Kennedy can explain where they got it. What Scripture says, “A person’s individual conscience is the highest authority there is. If you feel it’s right, it’s right. If you feel it’s wrong, it’s wrong”? Perhaps the learned professor could profit by studying the Scriptures more and the experts in psychology less. In Christianity the individual is not God; he is according to New Age theology, but not according to the Scriptures.
He is advocating the Willow Creek approach to religion: Find out what people want and give it to them. If they want to drink and gamble or abort their children, tell them they are conscientious Christians regardless of what the Bible says. If they want homosexual ministers and feel God accepts them in their sin (despite everything He has taught to the contrary), then they should have their way. If they want to give women roles that God denied them, then it does not matter what the Holy Spirit revealed to us: Vox Populi, Vox Dei (“The voice of the people is the voice of God”).
Mr. Carter has written one of the signs of the times. People can take their faith seriously while not taking its hierarchs seriously (3G).
Did not Moses have that same problem with the Israelites in the wilderness? In fact, while Moses was up on the mount receiving God’s holy law written by His own finger on tables of stone, they had already decided that the command concerning graven images was not practical. Later, as the book of Numbers verifies, they complained and murmured against Moses and God repeatedly. Each time they were punished. They were made to wander in the wilderness 40 years for not taking their hierarchs seriously (Moses, Aaron, Joshua, and Caleb). It is a contradiction to say that people take their faith seriously while disregarding their “hierarchs”–if those men are teaching the Word of God! God saves those who are obedient (Heb. 5:9).
Carter’s letter is a sign of the times–politically correct times, rebellious times, “follow your heart” times. Man’s wisdom has always resulted in failure, heartbreak, misery, and condemnation. People do not need the leadership of past presidents and psychologists; they need the Good Shepherd, who offers abundant life (John 10:10), which is found in submission to God.
Leonard Pitts
This syndicated columnist’s November 3rd article in The Dallas Morning News demonizes conservatives and seeks to undermine the authority of the Scriptures. He tells his readers:
But I don’t like bullies, which is what some religious fundamentalists–Christian and otherwise–too often amount to (27A).
Immediately, we infer two important facts from this statement: 1) Pitts has no understanding of conservatives; and 2) he does not believe in fairness. Think about what he is suggesting here. Is he not trying to lump together Christian “fundamentalists” with other religious groups such as Muslims? Many of those people think nothing of murdering someone who challenges their beliefs. What “Christian” group does that? When have any mainstream “Christian” fundamentalists preached anything near a 42nd cousin to the beliefs of such fanatics? It is one thing to disagree with someone and to press your position, but is quite another to assassinate the character of those with whom you disagree. Pitts should be ashamed. He has revealed more about himself than he has about his opponents. Notice how he continues this imagery:
Southern Baptists are, after all, the folks who waged jihad against Disney because the company provides health benefits for the same-sex partners of its employees and allows gay pride events at its amusement parks (27A).
Jihad? According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the word jihad means “1. A Moslem holy war against infidels. 2. A crusade” (704). Notice how this links to the previous statement: “fundamentalists–Christian and otherwise.” In these holy wars, people are killed. Christians do wage war, but it is one of words and ideas (Eph. 6:10-17). How dare Pitts compare a boycott (an economic weapon used by many groups on both ends of the political and religious spectrum) with acts committed by terrorists that dispatch enemies from this world!
Disney’s endorsement of homosexuality is the height of hypocrisy for an entertainment leader who for years was “family-oriented.” The displeasure against Disney was not exercised only by Southern Baptists, and it is doubtful that any employees even lost their jobs over the boycott, let alone their lives. But Pitts is not satisfied with castigating those who uphold Biblical morality and doctrine; now he must attack the Bible itself. He describes fundamentalists thus:
They wield God, the architect of all creation, as if he were a baseball bat they have been given to knock down any thing–or person– that offends them. And if you call them on it, their first line of defense is that all-purpose excuse, “The Bible says.”
This fanciful description is as idiotic as it is unfair. Pitts does not understand people who know and love God and who are willing to abide by His revelation to us. He cannot comprehend those who live by faith, have confidence in His promises, and respect Truth. To him God is a good-old-boy who agrees with his perspective on life, and the Bible is something to play games with rather than take seriously. He serves as an excellent example of Proverbs 14:9: “Fools make a mock at sin” (KJV). Christians ought not to use the Bible as a club, but if applying the Truth gores somebody’s ox, perhaps he should have restrained the beast.
The complaint against fundamentalists is not that they bully people; the complaint is that they exist. The world does not like to think that anyone can be genuinely holy and righteous. No, they must be hypocrites or bullies. How the world rejoices when a prominent religious figure is exposed and shown to be a phony (and some are)! As those in Noah’s day, the ungodly feel condemned and threatened by righteousness (Heb. 11:7); therefore fundamentalists must be demonized.
What is wrong (in defending ourselves against columnists who assault us) by answering, “The Bible says”? When Jesus was tempted by Satan, He answered, “It is written” (Matt. 4:4). We do not claim to have the character of Jesus, but Pitts is certainly taking Satan’s part.
Next he takes Scriptures from the Old Testament that were given to the Israelites (not Christians). These were God’s laws when the nation was a theocracy. Pitts should not blame fundamentalists because he does not understand that the law was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). We are subject to a better covenant (Heb. 8:6-7), one bought and paid for by the blood of Christ (Heb. 10:4).
He accuses Christians of picking and choosing the passages to which they will submit. This is an odd charge from someone who wants to disregard what the Scriptures teach about homosexuality. Or is it? Obviously, Pitts wants to think that everyone else is as guilty of doing what he knows he does (picking and choosing). But as regards the New Testament, God–not we– took the old covenant out of the way.
No column slandering fundamentalists would be complete without making a reference to “Judge not” and “Love your neighbor,” and Pitts does not disappoint. But these Scriptures do not help him, because the judging Jesus forbade does not entail calling a sin a sin–but rather going by appearances rather than facts (John 7:24). And love does not overlook sin; if that were the case, Jesus did not need to die on the cross. John 3:16 would read: “For God so loved the world that he overlooked their sins.” God (and therefore love) calls people to repentance. Jesus paid a dear and precious price for our sins, and if we want forgiveness, there is a price we too must pay: giving them up.
The column closes with this clever line: “God isn’t a Louisville Slugger.” Pitts may be surprised some day. The fact that God is not as tolerant as he is can be seen by what God did when Israel was a theocracy. God did wage a holy war. He used His people to conquer the Canaanites as judgment for their sins:
“And when the Lord your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them” (Deut. 7:2).
Christians, of course, have no such authority (as mentioned earlier). This verse and many others show that God’s love does not nullify His justice. God has appointed a day of judgment (Acts 17:30-31). All will be there and will give an account of what they have done in their bodies (2 Cor. 5:10). Christians know that the majority of people will be lost (Matt. 7:13-14), but our goal is to save as many as possible.
Why do we care, seeing that we only invite the wrath and scorn of the news media? Why do we not just remain silent, as they wish? One reason is that those living in sin cannot know the love of God or the blessedness of forgiveness. We do not hate sinners; we want them to repent of their sins and live the abundant life that Jesus offers (John 10:10).
We also speak the truth for the same reason Paul gave: “Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men…” (2 Cor. 5:11). Pitts impugns the motives of fundamentalists, which is exactly the kind of “judgment” that Jesus condemns; we pray that he might rethink his own harshness and bullying. Thanks goes to Jimmy Carter for making this discussion possible.