In Theory: On a former president leaving his faith

Last month, a 2009 column written by former President Jimmy Carter about his decision to quit his church on the basis of women’s rights resurfaced and went viral.

The column, “Losing my religion over equality,” was published nearly five years ago on the Australian newspaper The Age’s website. It was tweeted by a U.S. pastor and has since been shared more than 910,000 times on Facebook and nearly 1,400 times on Twitter.

In the column, Carter explains his decision to sever ties with his Southern Baptist faith — despite being a faithful practitioner for more than six decades — due to his view that church leaders’ selective interpretation of the Bible discriminated against women and girls.

“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,” Carter writes. “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.”

Since the column was published, Carter hasn’t stopped campaigning for women’s rights, the Religion News Service reports. Last year, he published a book, “A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence and Power,” that called on world leaders to address the issue.

Q: Since Carter’s column has resurfaced, what is your opinion of his decision? In your respective faiths, how big of a concern is women’s rights? What are some of the challenges (if any) that you’ve observed that women in faith have to face?

--

Jimmy Carter’s decision to cut ties with his Southern Baptist roots should be applauded, and I do so applaud him. Note that the former president hasn’t quit being a believer in God; he has only quit the stiff-necked denomination to which he belonged — and for good reason.

A long time ago, maybe in the 1970s, Gloria Steinem quipped that if that job doesn’t require a penis, I want it! For some strange reason that goes back centuries, men have kept women down, and I keep wondering why. In caveman days, when men did the hunting because they were physically the stronger, and the women stayed home (in the cave) to care for the children, maybe such a division of labor made sense. But not any more! Does it require male genitalia to be President of the United States? Of course not.

Other countries have had women leaders, so why shouldn’t we? And while women do give birth to our children, why should they be denied fulfillment in outside-the-home careers that men have always enjoyed?

When Jesus walked the earth, he gave women the same equal standing as men had. Some women were even full-fledged disciples, and you can read about them in the book of Acts.

But as time went on, the men took over again in church affairs, and I’m not really sure why. Look at the Roman Catholic Church — and the Eastern Orthodox, for that matter. There are no female priests to this day! Why? In a celibate order, is a penis required? I think not! There simply remains a prejudice against women, and I’ll be darned if I know why. In Protestantism and in Reform Judaism, women can be ministers and rabbis, but not in Catholicism or Orthodox Judaism. Boy, the old ways die hard, don’t they?

Women in America still don’t make the same amount of money overall as their male counterparts; it’s better than it was, but it’s still not equal. Why? Because prejudice runs deep and change is hard. So way to go, Jimmy Carter! And way to go, Gloria Steinem! You have both been courageous and prophetic in the Biblical sense, and I salute you!

The Rev. Skip Lindeman
La Cañada Congregational Church
La Cañada Flintridge

--

I applaud President Carter’s passion for women’s rights, though I don’t think it’s appropriate for him to lump the conservative Christian biblical understanding of women’s roles together with that of other faiths. I also believe that many critics of this conservative position are themselves guilty of “selective interpretation” of the Bible, trying to use scripture to justify the current trends in social thought rather than trying to discover what the Bible actually says about the subject. In my faith, women’s rights are a concern, but the struggle is mainly to keep to what the Bible teaches instead of blindly following old cultural traditions or new unbiblical cultural pressures.

What the Bible teaches about women is not complicated. Properly understood the Bible lifts women up and never demeans them. Women are created in the image of God just as much as men are (Genesis 1:27). Women like Sarah, Rahab, Hannah and numerous others are held up as great examples of faith. Deborah was successful judge over the entire nation of Israel. Mary the mother of Jesus exhibited great faith and devotion to God. The Bible teaches that women are saved by the grace of God through faith in Jesus’ death on the cross for our sins just as much as men are saved by that same faith. Galatians 3:28 teaches the fundamental equality of men and women before God in Christ: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

But the Bible never eliminates the distinction between men and women. In fact, it celebrates it. Jesus said: “from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6).

Titus 2:2-6 says: “Older men are to be temperate, dignified, sensible, sound in faith, in love, in perseverance. Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.” Men and women are by no means interchangeable.

While men and women are equal in dignity, worth and personhood before God, the Bible teaches that men and women at times have different roles. Wives are to be subject to their husbands, even as husbands are to give themselves for their wives (Ephesians 5:22-25). Only men are called to be elders in the church and the teachers of church assembled (Titus 1:6, 1 Timothy 3:2, 2:12). This is simply what the Bible teaches. Some people today, for their own reasons, choose to reject this. And that’s what this discussion really comes down to: either we follow the Bible or we don’t. Each of us will give account to God for our own choices.

Pastor Jon Barta
Burbank

--

The greatest challenge for many Mormon women — and men — is living faithfully in a world that increasingly is at odds with values that we hold, including our belief in the different, though complementary, roles of men and women.

In his essay, President Carter criticized Southern Baptists for their view that Eve was responsible for “original sin” and for excluding women from certain positions.

The LDS church differs from Baptists on the first matter. We don’t blame Eve for sin.

We do believe, however, that serving in the priesthood is a male responsibility. This means, for example, that only a man can be called to serve as bishop — the lay leader of a congregation. An overwhelming majority of Mormon women support this. In a 2013 Pew Research Center Survey, 90 percent of LDS women said they did not believe females should be ordained.

Women serve in many other ways that involve substantial responsibility. They deliver sermons, teach classes, lead youth organizations, advise on the use of welfare funds and serve in leadership councils. They do this on the congregational and regional levels and as members of the church’s global leadership. We believe that men and women need one another to achieve their full spiritual potential and that in marriage, husband and wife are equal partners.

From time to time, small groups of church members have advocated the ordination of women. Their comments suggest that they want the church to reflect trends of the larger world and that they see the priesthood as a type of executive power that they are denied. This perception is flawed. The church isn’t, nor should it become, a reflection of the secular world. And the priesthood, used as intended, has little to do with power as the world understands the term. It has everything to do with serving others.

Our purpose in mortality is to draw nearer to God. We look to Christ as the archetype for this journey. As the son of God he possessed power beyond our understanding, yet it was exercised only in the service of those in need. His greatest act, the atonement, was one of submission, also performed on behalf of others. The greatest act that we can perform is to try, as best we can, to be like him by learning to love and serve others, regardless of our position in life or in the church. To aspire to anything more than this is to miss the point.

Michael White
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
La Crescenta

--

We’ve worked out a fair number of women’s rights issues within the Episcopal church. Since at least the 1950s, women have participated in the power structures of the church, elected as members of local vestries (governing boards) and as deputies with a decision-making voice and vote in the national convention of the church. Women have been ordained priests since 1976, the first female bishop was elected in 1989, and the current Presiding Bishop of the national church is a woman. While there are still some areas of discrimination, in the church as in the country, many of the significant battles have already been fought.

Here are a couple of quotes from the March 2015 statement to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women:

“Episcopalians have published, studied, gathered, advocated and campaigned on gender discrimination, domestic and gender violence, sex trafficking, gender budgeting, election advocacy, word studies, and gender parity, both within our Church and at the United Nations.”

“Episcopalians especially are called to lift up women and girls who frequently are marginalized or forgotten: women with disabilities, women of color, women from ethnic minorities, women refugees and immigrants, girls displaced by war or sent abroad by themselves, lesbians and transgender individuals, indigenous women, older women, enslaved and trafficked women, women who are heads of single-family households and women in developing countries.”

There is a lot of very real work to be done for the rights and wellness of women in this world, and no church that claims any Christian integrity at all should remain on the side of those oppressors being fought, rather than being on the side of those doing the fighting.

Among many other nods of respect for your modeling of religious responsibility: Good for you, President Carter.

The Rev. Amy Pringle
St. George’s Episcopal Church
La Cañada Flintridge

--

Since I am a woman and an ordained member of the clergy, the issue of equality for women, particularly as it relates to religion, is of great concern to me. So I applaud former President Carter’s decision to leave the denomination in which he had been an active member for more than six decades. Although I know it must have been a heart-rending decision for him, he acted on his commitment to justice for all.

In my early 20s, I too left the religious tradition of my birth because of another issue of inequality — racial discrimination in the South and my denomination’s unwillingness to “walk their talk’ with love and respect for people of color in my city. I highly valued the ideals of my birthright church, but found that I could not remain a member there with integrity in light of my beliefs about the necessity for racial equality.

It was my need to integrate my religious beliefs with my thoughts and actions many years ago that led me to join my current denomination, a religious tradition that honors women as equal participants in life and professional ministry. Evidence of those values is exemplified by the fact that we were one of the first denominations to ordain a woman into ministry (in 1863) and that more than 50% of our ministers today are women. Unfortunately, that perspective does not seem to be extant in a number of other religious groups in our country now.

So I say with Carter: “This discrimination (against women), 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.” My hope is that adherence to outworn beliefs that disparage and undervalue women will be replaced in religion and in life by honoring “the inherent worth and dignity of every person” (Unitarian Universalist Principles), whatever their gender identification may be.

Rev. Dr. Betty Stapleford
Unitarian Universalist Church of the Verdugo Hills
La Crescenta

--

While I can applaud Jimmy’s crusade against gender inequality, as well as his revulsion for sex-selective abortion against baby girls, I think some of his logic is muddled and his accusations inaccurate (primarily as they pertain to Southern Baptists). Before I address the denomination, let’s agree that sex-selective abortion is something abominable, yet is it any more wretched than non-discriminatory abortion, where baby boys are also dissected and poisoned to death for the convenience of fumbled promiscuity?

That said, note that the Southern Baptist denomination is the largest Protestant body in America and is comprised of “equal” numbers of men and women. There’s no inherent gender-disdain that earmarks women as inferiors nor any doctrine asserting the inflammatory things that the peanut president charges. In fact, the Baptist Faith and Message states, “The husband and wife are of ‘equal worth’ before God, since both are created in God’s image.” It also states, “We should work to provide for the orphaned, the needy, the abused, the aged, the helpless, and the sick. We should speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death. Every Christian should seek to bring industry, government, and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness.” Does that sound like an oppressive organization that demeans people, even women?

Where there is a firm Southern Baptist tradition (based on strong biblical witness) is in the headship responsibility of males to their households and in the pastoral position at church. It’s not a perverted, religious, oppressionist view, but one that intends to follow God’s revelation as it’s understood. God is “Our ‘Father’ which art in Heaven,” who incarnated as “the ‘Son.’” Jesus also selected 12 male apostles from among his myriad co-ed disciples. Pastors in the New Testament were always male (though there were female deaconesses). None of this translates to the “deprivation” of women. It has to do with divinely assigned contextual responsibility. And no Southern Baptists would bet their eternal destinies on this point either, let alone proactively work to oppress their women. Sheesh!

The Rev. Bryan Griem
Community Church of Montrose
Montrose