Former President Jimmy Carter has frequently referred to his faith in public. As a Southern Baptist, he has watched the denomination become increasingly hostile toward women in particular.
In his essay “Losing my religion for equality,” he announces that, after 60 years with the Southern Baptist Convention, he's had enough of the discrimination embedded within the church – the belief that women are not equal to men in the eyes of the SBC's God.
I HAVE been a practising Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be “subservient” to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service.
This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths. Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women's equal rights across the world for centuries.
At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.
Carter also recognizes that calling out the hypocrisy and discrimination in the SBC (as well as other religions) is stepping on a third rail topic.
I understand, however, why many political leaders can be reluctant about stepping into this minefield. Religion, and tradition, are powerful and sensitive areas to challenge. But my fellow Elders and I, who come from many faiths and backgrounds, no longer need to worry about winning votes or avoiding controversy – and we are deeply committed to challenging injustice wherever we see it.
The truth is that male religious leaders have had – and still have – an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions – all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views.
This is a powerful challenge to the status quo; it is also true that religious leaders use sacred texts to condemn LGBTs as worthy of persecution, even death. I would hope that Jimmy Carter and other Elders could find it in their hearts to issue a statement of equal support challenging people of faith whose views hurt and kill on this front as well.



26 Comments





This is a great encyclical (sp?) from a past presidentHis views on a lot of things are very liberal so there was little left that he could do to surprise people. His determination to leave the Southern Baptist Conference after sixty years is a surprise, and his reason for doing so will open a lot of eyes and challenge a lot of people’s B.S.
One of the things that got him elected president was that he spoke constantly of his faith and how it required him to be honest, a man of character, and that sounded really good after Tricky Dick Nixon and his chosen successor, Gerald Ford. Carter was certainly the first Baptist minister I remember being elected president, and yet I don’t even know if he was a minister. He was, as he says, “an elder”.
I think Jimmy Carter may be the only recent president who really meant what he said when he spoke about his faith. That’s why when a reporter from Playboy Magazine asked him if he had ever cheated on his wife, he said, “I have sinned in my heart.” What he said was so honest that no one knew how to deal with such honesty at the time. Today, he would look really self-controlled compared to Bill Clinton, Sanford, Ensign, Wide Stance and the rest of them.
It probaby would have been better if Carter hadn’t given that “sinned in my heart” interview to Playboy, though. If he’d said it to a WaPost reporter, it wouldn’t have come across as salaciously as it did, perhaps.
Today, if there were a campaign debate at which they asked each candidate whether he had cheated on his wife, and one of them said, “I have sinned in my heart”, I think that statement would be taken as the mark of honesty and that honest candidate would be elected instead of the bold-faced liar, particularly if it were a Republican primary.
I saw Carter sitting next to President Lula on Brazilian television, and Carter looked so physically shrunken in the manner that occurs as people get really, really older. I’m happy that Carter has taken this step and used his elder years for one more quite major good and resounding purpose.
What – no mention of horrible treatment of LGBTs ?By not mentioning SBCs hateful and hurtful proclamations about LGBTs, such as our behavior is a “manifestation of a depraved nature and a perversion of divine standards” or their opposition to any legislation that “would give recognition to homosexuality,” Carter leaves us with the impression that he is in agreement with them.
Shame on him.
And I have to ask – what took him so long?
President Carterdefinitely does not agree with the SBC’s position on GLBT
issues. He has a gay son, and has spoken eloquently in the past about his belief in fairness and equality .
Can’t wait… to see the freeper head explosions over this one.
How powerfully written…Love Jimmy Carter. I am confused, though, about why he put Paul in that list of guys who’ve been misinterpreted rather than putting him in the list of men who have deliberately misrepresented the teachings of Christ to advance their own selfish, misogynistic worldviews.
I’d like Jimmy better…… if he didn’t side with the worst of the repressive regimes in every single situation.
Because many foundations of the traditional Christian faiths…Have their roots in Pauline theology and interpretations, influenced by the Greek, not in direct teachings attributed to Jesus.
And those same denominations tend to be of either an “all or nothing” approach towards the New Testament, or are deeply vested in later additions and interpretations (like Catholicism) and don’t want to start disavowing the first additions and interpretations.
What’s a freeper?
What took him so long?I’m wondering the same thing as Gary. The SBC started to become really repressive back in the 1980s. Why did Carter wait so long to leave, or at least speak up? There are plenty of liberal American Baptist or other congregations that will be happy to have him. I admire Carter a lot, but it bothers me that he continued to belong to a noxious organization like the SBC for so long.
Paul was a right bastard, indeedHe was a Roman citizen, and had similar ideas about how women should be treated. And one of the reasons the Jews and early christians were so against homosexuality is becauase it had been practiced by Babylonian, Egyptian, and Greek civilizations without shame, and the Jews wanted to distinguish themselves from their “pagan” neighbors. Paul reportedly did nothing to dissuade people on this point.
However, there has been speculation since the 19th century in historian/theologian circles that several of the Pauline epistles were pseudographs, not actually written by Paul, but someone appropriating his name. (I knew a Marianist Catholic university had to be good for something!) Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon are generally considered, undisputed, to actually be Paul’s writing. Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians are known as the “Deutero-Pauline Epistles,” and there is speculation that they were ghostwritten. 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus, known as the “Pastoral Epistles”, are widely regarded as pseudographs, and should not be considered Pauline doctrine. Contemporary Biblical scholars have completely rejected the epistle to the Hebrews as authored by Paul.
Still doesn’t mean I’m buying the religion. Hell, I’m not even renting it. I still think Paul was a bastard. But I take small, cold comfort in scholarship which dumps a big bucket of ice water all over all that shit about women keeping silent in church.
Conservadouches over at the Free Republic websiteEasily recognizable by their lack of scholarship or coherent sentence structure. Also known as “swamp dwellers,” Freepers represent the worst of the worst of the know-nothing knee-jerk hard rightwingers on The Intarwebz. Sometimes when something particularly “liberal” happens, Pam will proverbially don a pair of hip waders, go to the Free Republic website, and pull some choice quotes out for reposting so we can all laugh at them. Though sometimes it’s not really possible to laugh, and instead we shake our heads and remind ourselves that unfunded education mandates are a bad idea in America.
really?Interesting. Which son? I’ve never heard that.
confusedSo I remember hearing that he severed ties with them years ago. A search turned up this NYT article from 2000 where he said he was done with the SBC: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10…
He was still a member of a church that was affiliated with the SBC, but had stated his opposition to them. According to Wikipedia, he and some others started an umbrella group a few years ago for more progressive Baptists as an alternative to the SBC. So now I’m confused…how is he affiliated with the SBC such that he is severing ties with them (again)? Did he leave his home church or get them to leave the SBC? His essay is unclear.
To Side with?Really? If you’re thinking of Cuba, I think his approach is the way to really help the people there and to change Cuba. The traditional US policy is just about power and has saved the regime.
I refused to vote for him in ’76.
Because his own personal local church in GA was segregated. Glad to see he’s come around.
.
I can only remember one good sermon that I have heard.The summer the streets of Watts, Newark, and other cities erupted in the flames and violence of racial protests and riots, I had one year left in high school, lived in a predominately white and affluent Dallas suburb, and worked in the almost all-black-staffed kitchen of a cafeteria after school. [We had four restrooms in the kitchen in this order: black men, black women, white women, white men.] The Women’s Rights movement was still in its infancy, finding its voice to some extent in the discovered hypocrisies of the Sexual Freedom movement.
I liked the people I worked with, I think many of them liked me, and I felt some of the pain and anger they felt and expressed at what was happening to black Americans. I took these emotions and thoughts with me to church on Sundays, eager to hear our preacher rail against racial and social bigotry and injustice. What I heard were pleas for money to repair the church steeple or to fund missionaries overseas.
Then one Sunday the preacher talked about Adam and Eve and men and women. He reminded us that Eve came from Adam’s rib, not his head to be above him, nor his foot to be below him. His rib. So Eve could stand beside Adam as an equal.
I am NOT going to argue that the Bible is the word of God or that it accurately describes some events in human history — as far as I am concerned, that is up to each person to decide for themself. But perhaps the next time “the duck that runs the gospel-mill next door” [from Mark Twain's "Buck Fanshaw's Funeral"] works up a head of steam about women being subservient to men, throw “Adam’s Rib” at them and expound upon it and see how they reply. You won’t change their mind, but if you do it right, maybe they will start talking like Porky Pig*, look like a fool, and you will have your smile of the day.
*For the record as a “fumble-mouth”, I am not amused by other people’s speech problems. I am amused, however, by bigots who develop speech problems when their lies, bigotry and other stupidity get stuck in their mouths.
Maybe Venezuela,where media repression is so severe that a network was forced to go cable-only for something so minor as taking part in a military coup to overthrow the elected government. Carter’s organization acted as election observers there. (They noted that they would be unable to do so for American elections, because there aren’t enough protections against voter fraud and unequal access.)
Umm-mmm, a thought….Can we be as accepting of and gracious for Bill Clinton’s “evolved” position on marriage equality as we are of Jimmy Carter’s apparently “evolved” position on the dogmas of his religious tradition?
Come to think of it……I don’t think I’ve ever SEEN a woman chaplain in the military. I’m sure they exist, but in my short time in the Army, I never saw one. Never seen any mentioned in any of the Army Times publications or any other media, to be honest.
Women can be military chaplains.They must be ordained as a minister, priest, rabbi or whatever, though, so you won’t be seeing any from all those denominations that exclude women from their leadership positions.
I don’t think Carter is announcing a decision to leave the SBCIn his editorial he uses the past tense word “was”, rather than the present tense word “is” when referring to his decision to leave the Southern Baptist Convention.
I think he is merely referencing his long ago decision.
So?
It should be noted,…That is actually the same case as in the US. With voting computers election fraud is hard to prove.
In the case of Chavez it may be easier to believe that he did it. But international observers in Bush’s reelection also said “no fraud” although they couldn’t say anything about districts with voting computers.
Thank youThat’s the BEST. EVER. summation of a Freeper.
I will borrow freely from it as I often have trouble explaining the term to the uninitiated among my friends.
Of course, if these people were referred to asanonymous commenters on the right-wing Free Republic dot com website, you wouldn’t have to explain anything (other than why you were wasting your time on such a site
).
He actually quit the SBC in 2000.In this article he is further explaining that decision.