James Earl Carter, Jr., the 39th president, granted an interview to the Huffington Post recently to help publicize the publication of a new Bible that incorporates his own commentary on the Good Book.
However, it evidently isn’t good enough for Mr. Carter. When asked “Should we approach the Bible literally, or metaphorically?” he replies:
When we go to the Bible we should keep in mind that the basic principles of the Bible are taught by God, but written down by human beings deprived of modern day knowledge. So there is some fallibility in the writings of the Bible. But the basic principles are applicable to my life and I don’t find any conflict among them.
. . . just as there is “some fallibility” in the writings of former American presidents, one supposes.
Since Carter doesn’t elaborate further, we must conclude that he is comfortable with using an erroneous, and therefore unreliable, book which nevertheless contains “the basic principles [that] are applicable to my life.” It seems unlikely that as a naval officer he utilized nuclear reactor handbooks with the same equanimity.
Concerning homosexuality, the interviewer says: “A lot of people point to the Bible for reasons why gay people should not be in the church, or accepted in any way,” to which Carter replies:
Homosexuality was well known in the ancient world, well before Christ was born and Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. In all of his teachings about multiple things – he never said that gay people should be condemned. I personally think it is very fine for gay people to be married in civil ceremonies. — Ibid.
Let’s break that down:
(1) “Homosexuality was well known in the ancient world, well before Christ was born, and Jesus never said a word about homosexuality.” — That’s undeniably true, but like all effective propaganda, it will soon be followed by either a lie or an equivocation.
(2) “In all of his teachings about multiple things — he never said that gay people should be condemned.” — That’s literally true, BUT what Carter nimbly sidesteps is Jesus’s own mission statement:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am come not to destroy, but to fulfil. — Matthew 5:17.
The law, as expressed by God through His prophets, EXPRESSLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY condemns homosexuality as deviant behavior, punishable (in Old Testament days) by physical death and (in New Testament times and today) by eternal punishment to be meted out by God himself.
Possibly because of his belief in the Bible’s “fallibility,” Carter completely ignores other scriptures composed after Jesus’s time which deal with homosex, such as this one:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? [Comment: There are only two alternatives, the kingdom of God or the kingdom of hell. Take your pick.] Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, NOR EFFEMINATE [homosexuals], NOR ABUSERS OF THEMSELVES WITH MANKIND [homosexuals and any others practicing deviancy], nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. — The Apostle Paul, First Corinthians 6:9-10.
Since for Carter the Bible can mean what he wants it to mean, he can say: “I personally think it is very fine for gay people to be married in civil ceremonies,” and feel his toes tingle with the liberality of it all, even if it ultimately results in destroying the Biblical concept of marriage.
We’re inclined to give Mr. Carter a couple of Brownie points for the following:
I draw the line, maybe arbitrarily, in requiring by law that churches must marry people. I’m a Baptist, and I believe that each congregation is autonomous and can govern its own affairs. So if a local Baptist church wants to accept gay members on an equal basis, which my church does by the way, then that is fine. If a church decides not to, then government laws shouldn’t require them to. — Ibid.
However, recent events, such as a federal attempt to coerce cooperation with its socialized medicine mandates irrespective of anyone’s religion or morality, bode ill for church-state relations — and Carter is well aware of it. If the government were to require churches to marry homosexuals or face punishment of some sort, Mr. Carter probably wouldn’t kick too hard against it (“Serves ’em right for discriminating like that.”).
When he is asked: “Jesus says I am the way the truth and the life (John 14:6). How can you remain true to an exclusivist faith claim while respecting other faith traditions?” Carter waffles, changing the subject:
Jesus also taught that we should not judge other people (Matthew 7:1), and that it is God who judges people, so I am willing to let God make those judgments, in the ultimate time whenever it might come. I think ‘judge not that you be not judged’ is the best advice that I will follow. Maybe it is a rationalization, but it creates a lack of tension in my mind about that potential conflict. — Ibid.
In other words, it’s being judgmental to believe that Jesus is the ONLY way to eternal life. So Christians shouldn’t take their faith too seriously — don’t worry, be happy. And for Pete’s sake, DON’T THINK about it.
Carter adds:
There are many verses in the Bible that you could interpret very rigidly and that makes you ultimately into a fundamentalist. When you think you are better than anybody else — that you are closer to God than other people, and therefore they are inferior to you and subhuman — that leads to conflict and hatred and dissonance among people when we should be working for peace. — Ibid.
He can’t help using the “F” word — “fundamentalist.” People with an ecumenical bent like Mr. Carter detest fundamentalists, primarily because fundies ordinarily oppose the establishment of a World Religion.
And Carter cleverly inserts the “R” word — “racism” — without actually saying it with the phrase “inferior to you and subhuman.” His juxtaposition of the two concepts — fundamentalism and racism — in consecutive sentences is not a coincidence. In the modern Liberal-Progressive mind, they’re inseparable.
Since Mr. Carter is convinced of the Bible’s “fallibility,” he has no problem with elevating so-called “science” over the Word. He’s asked: “How do you approach the passages in the Bible that talk about God’s creation (Genesis 1:1) while maintaining a positive attitude towards science?” His reply:
I happen to have an advantage there because I am a nuclear physicist by training and a deeply committed Christian. I don’t have any doubt in my own mind about God who created the entire universe. But I don’t adhere to passages that so and so was created 4000 years before Christ, and things of that kind. Today we have shown that the earth and the stars were created millions, even billions, of years before. We are exploring space and sub-atomic particles and learning new facts every day, facts that the Creator has known since the beginning of time. — Ibid.
As far as we know, there are no “passages” in the Bible stating in so many words “that so and so was created 4000 years before Christ.” But a historical-textual reading of the Book simply can’t support the notion that “the earth and the stars were created millions, even billions, of years before.” There’s simply no wiggle room for long ages since the creation. It’s clear Mr. Carter accepts evolution as the world’s history, and subordinates Scripture to natural philosophy.
Mr. Carter exhibits the same evolutionary bias when he is asked: “Did God write the Bible?” He responds:
God inspired the Bible but didn’t write every word in the Bible. We know, for instance that stars can’t fall on the earth, stars are much larger than the earth. That was a limitation of knowledge of the universe or physics, or astronomy at that time, but that doesn’t bother me at all. — Ibid.
In addition to implying that God — who inspired the Scripture writers — is an ignoramus, Mr. Carter knows full well the word “star” has always been loosely used for centuries and even now in reference to ANY heavenly body. (He might be thinking of Revelation 8, in which a “star” — possibly an asteroid — called “Wormwood” hits the earth, causing uncounted casualties.)
And it’s Liberty Hall when it comes to doctrine. Times have changed, Carter asserts, and eternal verities spoken through the apostles of Jesus no longer need apply:
Paul also said that women should not be adorned, fix up their hair, put on cosmetics, and that every woman who goes in a place of worship should have her head covered. Paul also said that men should not cut their beards and advocated against people getting married, except if they couldn’t control their sexual urges. Those kinds of things applied to the customs of those days. Every worshipper has to decide if and when they want those particular passages to apply to them and their lives. — Ibid.
Once more, three factual statements precede a conclusion that doesn’t necessarily follow from what came before: “Every worshipper has to decide [if these things] apply to them and their lives.” Like apostate Israel, Mr. Carter lapses into moral relativism: “In those days … every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 17:6)
Since, according to Mr. Carter, God only “inspired” the creation of Scripture without being too specific, and since the Bible is prone to “fallibility,” then matters of doctrine are largely irrelevant and tend to be divisive — and divisiveness is the unpardonable sin to any Liberal-Progressive.
Any traditionalist Christian parents who are thinking of giving Mr. Carter’s version of the Bible to their kids just might want to think twice about it.
