New York Times reporter David Kirkpatrick reports that Jimmy Carter made the following statement at Bill Hybels’ leadership conference in the summer of 2007:
“I think that a superpower ought to be the exemplification of a commitment to peace … I would like for anyone in the world that’s threatened with conflict to say to themselves immediately: ‘Why don’t we go to Washington? They believe in peace and they will help us get peace.’ This is just a simple but important extrapolation from what a human being ought to do, and what a human being ought to do is what Jesus Christ did, who was a champion of peace.”
Really? Is Carter actually suggesting that the American state should reflect the values of Jesus Christ? This is the clear implication of his statement. According to Carter, the state should do what good human beings do and good human beings will exemplify the values of Jesus.
If asked for proof that Jesus was a champion of peace, I imagine that Mr. Carter might quote from the Sermon on the Mount. “Blessed are the peacemakers,” Jesus said, “for they shall be called the sons of God” (Matthew 5:9). Rather than demanding an “eye for an eye”, Jesus requires us to “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:38-39). “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you …. ” (Luke 6:27) is another well-known command of the Prince of Peace and it tells us to seek reconciliation rather than retaliation.
Fair enough. Jesus is in favor of peace.
Interestingly, in that same famous sermon, Jesus also speaks about many other moral issues – issues such as divorce and adultery. He condemns both. Does Carter think that the American government should incorporate Jesus’ views on divorce and adultery into its public policy? If not, why not? After all, those values are right there in that same Sermon on the Mount that Carter would rely on for proof that Jesus is a promoter of peace. If the American government should exemplify Jesus’ views on peace, why should it not also adopt his views on marriage and illicit sex?
Imagine what would happen if James Dobson appeared at the National Association of Evangelicals’ national meeting and said:
“I think that a superpower ought to be the exemplification of a commitment to marriage … I would like for anyone in the world that’s threatened with divorce to say to themselves immediately: ‘Why don’t we go to Washington? They believe in marriage and they will help us preserve our marriage.’ This is just a simple but important extrapolation from what a human being ought to do, and what a human being ought to do is what Jesus Christ did, who was a champion of marriage.”
I can easily imagine that Jimmy Carter would be critical of such a view. He has repeatedly been critical of politically conservative Christians and their attempts to pursue moral agendas that they think Jesus cares about.
But regardless of Carter’s reaction, the usual voices on the political left would undoubtedly be outraged by such statements coming from Dobson. They’d be at DEFCON1 in the blink of an eye. From their bunkers, they’d issue dire warnings about the dangers of religious fundamentalists who want to take over this country and turn it into a Christian theocracy. They’d wag their fingers and tells us that you can’t legislate morality.
Yet this same reaction does not occur to them when Carter suggests that the federal government should be promoting peace in the world because this is what Jesus wants.
Why?
I think it’s pretty simple. They believe, in the face of all the evidence from world history to the contrary, that any dispute can be and should be peacefully resolved by negotiation and compromise but they do not believe in the ideal of marriage to one partner for life. They are happy to see people use Jesus to help them with causes in which they believe and they are happy to demand that Jesus be ignored in the public arena when his values conflict with their own.
Of course, this same phenomenon occurs on the political right. All political perspectives pick and choose the moral issues about which they choose to get exercised. Selective moral outrage is a common human failing.
All of these considerations bring my basic question about the interplay of Christian faith and politics into focus: Is there a principled basis for deciding which of my Christian values, if any, should be reflected in the governance of a secular state?
I’m beginning to make some progress on this question and I’m happy to get any thoughts you might have on this matter.
Author’s Clarification on 12/31/2007: Nothing in the discussion above was meant to be judgmental towards those who might have stumbled in the areas of divorce or adultery. While Jesus condemns both practices, he was compassionate and merciful to those he met who had failed in these matters.
Hey…Mike!
Welcome to “blogland!!!”
You are a MOST welcome addition.
Keep it coming, because you have much to say…and I will be a willing reader and interacter with you.
It is good to have you doing this…for many reasons.
I’ll add my welcome too, Mike. We met a few years back when I was with Wes up in the mountains. It’s good to hear your voice again.
Here’s a thought: Maybe Carter isn’t promoting a theocracy. Maybe he’s just cherry-picking some of Jesus’ ideas. And if so, the peace one isn’t a bad place to start.
Looking forward to more good stuff from you.
Hi Mike,
You are a welcome addition to blogland and have great ideas people are better for interacting with. Way to go!
I was at the Leadership Summit last August and heard the taped interview of Carter. I like the questions you ask and the theocratic implications of his comments.
Keep it up…I look forward to your next installment.
http://360.yahoo.com/waynedarbonne
Grace and Peace
My initial thought is “Why would anyone give a flip about what the most ineffective President of the 20th century has to say about anything?”
Blogs were made for Mike and Mike was made for blogging!
I’m serious! My only question is, what took you so long? As long as I have known you (we won’t go into how long that is) you have been a serious thinker. This medium is perfect for you.
This could be a lot of fun.
I’ll just throw out a thought about how the policies of the state relate to the teachings of Jesus: there is no direct relationship.
Governements are made up of people. Only to the extent that the individuals involved have personally been transformed by commiting their lives to Jesus, can the policies of the state reflect the teachings of Jesus. Not because the state has been set up with some sort of theocratic biblical constitution, but because Christians in government will influence policies in a way which reflects their core beliefs.
I am not sure Jimmy Carter [I almost abbreviated it “JC” which would not have worked well] really advocates a theocracy, although this one statement suggests it. When he went to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, he made this statement:
“It is clear that global challenges must be met with an emphasis on peace, in harmony with others, with strong alliances and international consensus. Imperfect as it may be, there is no doubt that this can best be done through the United Nations, which Ralph Bunche described here in this same forum as exhibiting a “fortunate flexibility” – not merely to preserve peace but also to make change, even radical change, without violence.”
No theocratic rantings there. But then, maybe his views have changed in the intervening five years.
Where I am taking “principled basis” to mean a justification for acting with morality, I want to say that the answer to your question is not “no.” It seems like there is a foundation for recognizing right and wrong in the secular state based on the simple truth that governments are made up of people. C.S. Lewis wrote: “…human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it.” Though, I am not necessarily sure that the answer is “yes” either. And if, in fact, it is, I am afraid that I am no help in determining what that principled basis actually is. Of course, that is why you, and not I, are the master blogger. I am anxious to hear what’s next!
As a side note, I realize that quoting C.S. Lewis to you probably serves no purpose as your study of his work is much more in depth than my own, but what do you expect from a daughter who was brought up on the Chronicles of Narnia and taken to the C.S. Lewis Festival.
Jesus simply did not have much to say about the behavior of governments, but he had a lot to say about the behavior of individuals. Regardless of where we live, we must as individuals love our neighbor as ourselves, be morally upright, etc. In order to be involved in any government, one must also submit to the principles by which that nation is governed. In some places the tenets of Christianity might be incompatible with the principles of government.
In the United States, in order even to be involved in governance, you would have to accept the principles which our founding fathers enshrined in our founding documents. including the Declaration of Independence:
“…endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
as well as the U.S. Constitution.
The founders believed that they were setting up a secular nation which nevertheless was based on principles established by God.
To participate in government, you also would have to accept the requirement (contained in the oath of office for all government officials and military members) to defend the Constitution “from all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
Included in the founding principles are the ideas of equality before God and under the law. Few would argue that communism or fascism are compatible with these principles. A more insipid danger is that of socialism and its fundamental principle of economic equality, which, by confiscating the wealth of some to give to those without wealth, deprives people of their liberty as well as their ability to pursue happiness.
However in some countries, the concept of social equality is a fundamental principle. Could a Christian participate in the governance of such a nation? Perhaps so. Remembering that another founding principle in the United States is that the government derives its authority from the consent of the governed. Presumably the citizens of the socialist and socialist-leaning members of the EU have consented to the form of government that they have. They are also free to live somewhere else if they like. In the United States we have the ability to amend our constitution. We could change, add, or eliminate our fundamental principles.
I think that there is a fair amount of flexibility as far as whether or not we as individuals can be part of government. We could even choose to amend the constitution to specify that “the state should do what good human beings do and good human beings will exemplify the values of Jesus.” However, we would be wrong to do so under the belief that God demanded it, because he does not.
Good to see Alysha here. She probably does not remember me, but obviously she has grown up to be a fine young lady!