Mr. Carter, Getting Fed Up, Finally

IN A RECENT OP ED, FORMER PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER (yes, he's still alive) made a shocking announcement. He is resigning the Southern Baptist Convention. In a beautifully written piece, Mr. Carter, now 91 years old and living history for those under the age of forty, describes himself as a born again Christian, whose religion has, like millions of other people around the world, sustained him and given him guidance and inspiration his entire life. He has served as a deacon for decades, as well as teaching Sunday school and attending the same church in Plains, Georgia, almost from the time of Jesus (just joking). His membership in the SBC has lasted sixty years. If I'm not mistaken, the Southern Baptist convention is the caucasian version of the Southern Baptist Leadership conference, which, if memory serves, is Jesse Jackson's outfit, the African-American version. Why there are two racially based organizations within American baptistry shan't be explored here, other than to speculate that since the church is centered in the American south, and since the American south has a history of, shall we say, racial, shall we say, discord and division, that perhaps the church is merely a reflection of that fact. Again, who knows? The reason why Carter is resigning is that over his objections, the SBC, citing biblical scripture, formally declared, or reaffirmed, that woman are to be subservient to men, and therefore cannot hold official positions within the church. With regard to the former president, this begs the question: why now? Or put another way, what took you so long? Or maybe: if this is how you feel, why did you ever become a baptist, let alone a Christian, in the first place, let alone aspire to positions of leadership within the faith? The math indicates that Carter has been a Baptist Christian since, well, about nineteen thirty something, and a member of the SBC since 1957. The Christian faith, biblically, has relegated women to a position of subordination since the Bible first appeared in print, in the fourth century. Not only that, but the bible has condoned slavery since day one. In fact, prior to the Civil War, as Mr. Carter surely knows, all slave owners were Christians, and they all defended owning slaves based on the Bible. For them to do so was perfectly consistent within the context of their religious affiliation, since the Bible, both old and new testaments, clearly condones slavery, as well as a number of other practices which we today generally consider barbaric, such as animal sacrifice, disciplining disobedient children by killing them (Mathew 15:4), among others. are we to assume that prior to just recently the former president agreed with the biblical position that women are by God's command subordinate? Or that he has spent his entire life condoning slavery, because he is a Christian, and believes in the truth of the Bible? these are fair and reasonable questions, question which I have often wanted to ask of any and all Christians, but never have, for fear of arousing great antipathy and wrath, from human and possible divine sources. If you believe that Bible, do you believe the bible is the "Word of God"? If so, do you as a Christian, condone slavery and the subordination of women to men, and all the other biblical injunctions and teachings which to many of us today seem, shall we say, primitive, barbaric, and downright evil? Only Jimmy Cater, 39th president of the United states, can answer for himself. Every justification of ostensible biblical barbarity I have ever heard from devout Christians has seemed unreasonable to me, evasive, illogical, and usually have something to do with "we cannot interpret the Bible in ancient terms; they had different values back then: or each generation must read God's Word from fresh perspective. I never bother to reply that, if this is the case, why not obtain divine inspiration, and produce a new version of scripture which matches our modern values, not those of thousands of years ago. if I did, I can suppose that all I would receive in return would be more evasive, convoluted, rationalizing tripe. But I would love to hear Mr. Carter's answers; my hope is that he would do better.