(Jimmy Carter's letter is in black font and mine is in blue...)
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status ..." (Article 2, Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)
First Mr. President, as a Christ follower I do not recognize the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be authoritative in my life or in the Church, but I do recognize Scripture as such. It is telling to me by which precedes the other in your opening as to which you hold in higher regard.I have been a practicing 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.
It is wonderful that your faith is a source of strength and comfort to, sir, but that misses the point of the Christian faith in particular. Our faith is a source of strength and especially of comfort because it is the True faith. You may not lump the exclusivity of Christianity which holds that Jesus grants us access to God through His death, burial, and resurrection alone in with all other world religions. If man is comforted by anything other than Christ, it is an illusion.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 was in conflict with my belief - confirmed in the holy scriptures - that we are all equal in the eyes of God.
There is much to address here. First sir, it is important to note that Eve WAS created second, after Adam. But no SBC leader that I am aware of has openly or privately blamed Eve for original sin. Adam was present according to the Genesis narrative, and abdicated his God-given responsibility to protect and serve his mate. Eve was deceived by the serpent, but Adam sinned willfully. The Biblical position is that the man, not the woman, is responsible for our Fallen state.
Your understanding of marriage roles, and offices of the Church as the pertain to genders is clearly Egalitarian as opposed to Complimentarian. The admonition in Ephesians 5 to wives is to submit to their husbands. Note that there are 3 verses in the passage to the wives, and 9 to the husbands. Again, the burden falls to the man to create an environment of sacrificial, Christlike love that frees the woman to submit to his authority.
You've confused the ideas of personal value (all are equal) with different roles and varying degrees of authority. This is a common mistake in our culture. The husband is of no greater worth or value than the wife in the marriage covenant, but he is given the role of headship and authority. This confusion that you allude to is almost always the end product of a mindset that cannot understand intrinsic value being made in God's image, and so must strive to find meaning in worth in accomplishment and comparison. But the Doctor or the Judge is of no greater value as a person than the Street Sweeper though they do wield differing degrees of power and authority according to their roles.This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. It is widespread. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths.
While that may be true in many faiths, it would be disingenuous to make that accusation about Christianity. In fact, it is the teachings of Jesus that have most elevated the status of women worldwide these last 2000 years.
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. The male interpretations of religious texts and the way they interact with, and reinforce, traditional practices justify some of the most pervasive, persistent, flagrant and damaging examples of human rights abuses.
Again, Mr. President, I affirm that there have been and are abuses in the name of religion. But let me pose a question: If you truly believe that there is “no male, no female” and that gender roles are societal constructs imposed by antiquated beliefs, then why do you cite “male interpretations?” Is this not sexist? Interpretation is interpretation regardless of gender. One must wrestle with hermeneutics and exegesis with regard to Scripture whether they are male, female, or hermaphrodite. At their 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.
I have to ask, what does this situation you're describing have to do with the Southern Baptist Convention? I can only assume that you refer at one point to costing many millions of girls and women “control over their own bodies and lives” to mean taking a Scriptural stand against the practice of abortion. I wonder, what if all the unborn babies were female? Would they have special rights or considerations? If it is females who are being oppressed, then what about the females that are killed in the womb? And if the females (and you believe that the genders are truly equal) then what of the males that are killed there? How do you reconcile this glaring inconsistency?The impact of these religious beliefs touches every aspect of our lives. They help explain why in many countries boys are educated before girls; why girls are told when and whom they must marry; and why many face enormous and unacceptable risks in pregnancy and childbirth because their basic health needs are not met.
No Mr President, it is not primarily religion that is responsible for the things you've listed. It is sin. It is the wickedness of heart that suppresses the knowledge of God. In some Islamic nations, women are restricted in their movements, punished for permitting the exposure of an arm or ankle, deprived of education, prohibited from driving a car or competing with men for a job. If a woman is raped, she is often most severely punished as the guilty party in the crime.
The same discriminatory thinking lies behind the continuing gender gap in pay and why there are still so few women in office in Britain and the United States. The root of this prejudice lies deep in our histories, but its impact is felt every day. It is not women and girls alone who suffer. It damages all of us. The evidence shows that investing in women and girls delivers major benefits for everyone in society. An educated woman has healthier children. She is more likely to send them to school. She earns more and invests what she earns in her family.
How can you, with a straight face and any sense of intellectual honesty compare punishing women who are the victims of rape with pay gaps? Really? Tell that to the Arab woman who is mutilated and beaten for being raped. Tell her that she is no different than those poor, liberated women in the west who only make $55,000 a year instead of $61,000 a year because they have vaginas instead of penises. Absurd!It is simply self-defeating for any community to discriminate against half its population. We need to challenge these self-serving and out-dated attitudes and practices - as we are seeing in Iran where women are at the forefront of the battle for democracy and freedom.
I understand, however, why many political leaders can be reluctant about stepping into this minefield. Religion, and tradition, are powerful and sensitive area to challenge.
As a professing Christian, I am alarmed at the subtle way that you continue to interweave the labels that our media and culture place on Islamic fascists with those who observe the clear teachings of the Bible. I rejoice that women are at the forefront of the battle for democracy in Iran, but that has nothing to do with your succession from the SBC.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 Elders have decided to draw particular attention to the responsibility of religious and traditional leaders in ensuring equality and human rights. We have recently published a statement that declares: "The justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a Higher Authority, is unacceptable."
Then upon what grounds do you then discriminate against those who discriminate? You don't even attempt to appeal to a “Higher Authority.” You only look to yourselves. This is the essence of pride. Are you not claiming to be an authority unto yourselves? What you're describing here is really Humanism as you become your own gods, and not Biblical Christianity.We are calling on all leaders to challenge and change the harmful teachings and practices, no matter how ingrained, which justify discrimination against women. We ask, in particular, that leaders of all religions have the courage to acknowledge and emphasize the positive messages of dignity and equality that all the world's major faiths share.
Although not having training in religion or theology, I understand that the carefully selected verses found in the holy scriptures to justify the superiority of men owe more to time and place - and the determination of male leaders to hold onto their influence - than eternal truths. Similar Biblical excerpts could be found to support the approval of slavery and the timid acquiescence to oppressive rulers.
Your lack of training in theology is no excuse for your lack of understanding with regards to the inspiration of Scripture - a pivotal and primary doctrine of the faith. It is the slippery slope of a culturally “relevant” hermeneutic that has lead you away from the SBC. At the same time, I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn't until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted holy scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.
Could you please cite Scripture that supports your assertion that women served as priests, bishops, or apostles? Your sounding more like Dan Brown (Da Vinci Code) with your weak argument about men in the 4th century twisting and distorting the faith. Its been done. Its old. It doesn't hold water historically. Perhaps you should add History to the areas in which you admit that you have no training. I know, too, that Billy Graham, one of the most widely respected and revered Christians during my lifetime, did not understand why women were prevented from being priests and preachers. He said: "Women preach all over the world. It doesn't bother me from my study of the scriptures."
With all respect to Billy Graham, he is fallible and is not my standard of truth. The Bible is. And where Dr. Graham and the Bible come into conflict, the Bible wins and Billy Graham needs to have a seat. 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.
I wish that I could say that I am surprised that there is not one valid argument in your letter pertaining directly to the SBC or validating your withdrawal from it. Many of us who have kept abreast of your public ramblings in recent years have been aware for a long time that you were not joined to the SBC in heart or in truth. But the reason has little to do with gender roles, through that is a side-issue, a bi-product of the actual problem. The real issue is your view of Scripture. You long ago left the Solas of the Reformation, especially Sola Scriptura, and have aligned yourself with views of the Bible that fit more comfortably in the Unitarian Universalist tradition. All in all, I applaud your withdrawal, but not for the reasons you state. I find myself grateful that in your succession, some degree of doctrinal purity is being preserved in already battered and beleaguered denomination.
[From L to R: Matt (being a goof), Robbie, Wes, me, and Charles]
[Noah and Ethan hiking in North Carolina]
[The Satterfields with the Alligs (seated in front of Mike), the Villaltas (standing in back) and the Fitzgeralds (reclining)]
[The lake house...yeah, its big...]
[The kids opening their first care package from Smokey Point Community Church]
[All the kids at World of Wonder (Castle) Park today.]
