Carter's Reasoning for Leaving the Baptist Church

[Totenkindly]

I find it sloppy to automatically assume that this whole discussion is merely about personal interpretation. That certainly is consistent with the Protestant perspective; but Catholics and Orthodox operate on a completely framework here.

I am dealing with what was presented in the actual argument that was made.

That's the difference between what I said and what you said:
You're reading into things that might or might not be there.
I'm dealing with what I *KNOW* was presented and not otherwise speculating about what he "might or might not" be operating from when there's no way to know that for sure...

...without even reading the article first, as you admitted up front.

Carter here is expressing his reasoning for leaving the SBC over their views on particular issues, which he clearly states in his view violates "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."

And I give reference here to the verse(s) of St. Paul that one would most directly refer in making such an argument, and you seem to have a problem with this - namely because Carter does not literally refer to the verse in question. He's still making a reference to it, whether he literally states it or not.

Fine. You can read Carter's mind and know what he exactly he must have been thinking and exactly how he was approaching his argument, based on your personal beliefs and hunches. You win.

Can you explain this position or link to someone who can?

Yeah, I release you from the above argument, Peguy.
If you can give a link to sum this position up, so other people can discuss it, that would be nice. Thanks.

 

[Athenian200]

Long story short: Men and women are of two different -abeit complementary- natures, and gender relations should be based upon mutual respect. Nevertheless, it's important for women to submit to the authority of men.

That's exactly why I think Christianity (at least as put forth directly in the Bible) is unjust. Not all Christians believe this, but this is because they (thankfully) don't accept all the principles of their religion.

Christianity might be a part of the Western tradition, but there are a lot of other things that have been part of the Western tradition I think we would do well to discard. Monarchy, Feudalism, serfdom/slavery, burning of witches, torture... need I go on? The idea you describe is right up there with those others.

 

[Alwar]

I think the hardliners can be domesticated. They have for the most part in the West. Nobody runs in terror when they see an Amish family.

 

[Tiltyred]

Can you explain this position or link to someone who can?

Colossians 18-25 is the usual thing quoted.

18 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them.

20 Children, be obedient to your parents in all things, for this is well-pleasing to the Lord.

21 Fathers, do not exasperate your children, so that they will not lose heart.

22 Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.

23 Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men,

24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance It is the Lord Christ whom you serve.

25 For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality.

ETA: It makes me happy that Jimmy Carter has taken this stand as a Christian and as a man.

 

[lowtech redneck]

I'm confused, didn't Carter already leave the SBC for a more liberal Baptist association several years ago, and hasn't this particular doctrine already been endorsed by the SBC for several years? I thought this was old news?

As for the SBC, I have a lot of moral disagreements with them (including this issue), but this is not a particularly important one in my eyes; the gender discriminatory hierarchical relationship is voluntary and limited to private life. Now, that doctrine decrying women being in positions of authority over (non-husband) men is another issue entirely, as it is much more likely to affect public life (I don't know if the SBC supports that one or not, but some conservative churches do).

For what its worth, the Baptists denomination stresses the separation of Church and state as well as personal biblical interpretation; despite the theological and social conservatism of many (probably most) of its churches, I don't view it as a long-term threat to individual liberty, and historically it has played a substantial role in the development of religious freedom (and therefore all other freedoms) by providing and subsequently promoting theological justifications for the same.

 

[stellar renegade]

I consider this a pretty big deal (similar to Anthony Flew's admission there might be a deist style of god).

Thoughts? Feelings? Reflections? Problems/Holes?

Official ministry roles are a pagan tradition which early Christianity had nothing to do with. Ministry was done mutually by everyone, both men and women (although it appears the women did tend to leave the decision-making up to the men) and any distinctive ministry descriptions (shepherd, elder, etc) were just a recognition of that person's prior abilities and work. These people worked in the background, not the forefront.

Therefore this whole issue would be moot. Paul recognized alot of female ministers, thus it's ridiculous to say that he thought they shouldn't be holding influence in the Christian communities.

 

[simulatedworld]

Colossians 18-25 is the usual thing quoted.

18 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

I'd be very surprised if "look at these Bible quotes" was the extent of Peguy's argument here. I think he's much smarter than to take every word of the Bible literally.

 

[Journey]

As I understand it, Jimmy Carter was supposed to have left the SBC several years ago, but never did. And again, as I heard it, he is still in the same church he has always been in and has not left anything. If this is true, I think this conversation is useless.

 

[LadyJaye]

I believe the whole point of women submitting to their husbands, in historical context, was because women at the time could hold no positions of authority, and therefore EVERY authority figure was male. This is no longer the case. Consider that Christ had Mary Magdalene as one of his very close friends and advisers, a place that was unprecedented for a woman at the time. Telling women to submit to their husbands was to create order within the family, not to subjugate her to his final say so on every matter.

 

[stellar renegade]

Oh, geez. Ok, here's the deal.

There were plenty of women who had ministries. Back in the day gatherings always consisted of men, so even having women there was revolutionary. They weren't used to these meetings, though, and the kinds of talk that went on in them, so if someone was saying something in front of the group they would often ask their husbands about it. Paul just told them to save the questions for home since they were disrupting the meetings and throwing them into disarray. The Corinthian church was crazy like that.

A note on the wording - it's not that women were being told they had to be beaten down but that they would often go out of control and sometimes try to take control when they got the chance. I think it's both the fact that when you're constantly pushed back you fight for your freedom. It's not that Christianity was subjugating women but that society was. The Christian movement was trying to liberate them but in a civil way. The very fact that they were able to create an uproar shows the liberty they were starting to get.

Which leads to the reference in 1 Timothy 2. The women were becoming so free that they were clinging to a new Gnostic teaching that the serpent in the garden was serving the true God and that women were right for eating the fruit and in doing so brought something good into the world. It doesn't make any sense but these uneducated women were lapping it up and creating alot of disturbance in the church, so Paul was saying at this time the women should be silent.

Paul was a very practical man. Most of his direction was temporary advice or a general guideline. He left decisions up to the churches and only asserted authority as a more experienced Christian brother.

To take his advice as a universal, absolute "command" and a complete worldview is to do injustice to him. With as many women ministers as Paul commended, the view that he thought women should just be silent and inactive is ridiculously misleading.

 

[LadyJaye]

Oh, geez. Ok, here's the deal.

There were plenty of women who had ministries. Back in the day gatherings always consisted of men, so even having women there was revolutionary. They weren't used to these meetings, though, and the kinds of talk that went on in them, so if someone was saying something in front of the group they would often ask their husbands about it. Paul just told them to save the questions for home since they were disrupting the meetings and throwing them into disarray. The Corinthian church was crazy like that.

A note on the wording - it's not that women were being told they had to be beaten down but that they would often go out of control and sometimes try to take control when they got the chance. I think it's both the fact that when you're constantly pushed back you fight for your freedom. It's not that Christianity was subjugating women but that society was. The Christian movement was trying to liberate them but in a civil way. The very fact that they were able to create an uproar shows the liberty they were starting to get.

Which leads to the reference in 1 Timothy 2. The women were becoming so free that they were clinging to a new Gnostic teaching that the serpent in the garden was serving the true God and that women were right for eating the fruit and in doing so brought something good into the world. It doesn't make any sense but these uneducated women were lapping it up and creating alot of disturbance in the church, so Paul was saying at this time the women should be silent.

Paul was a very practical man. Most of his direction was temporary advice or a general guideline. He left decisions up to the churches and only asserted authority as a more experienced Christian brother.

To take his advice as a universal, absolute "command" and a complete worldview is to do injustice to him. With as many women ministers as Paul commended, the view that he thought women should just be silent and inactive is ridiculously misleading.

Well done!

I couldn't get my thoughts together yesterday, and I see I didn't have to. lol Very well expressed.

 

[kelric]

Nevertheless, it's important for women to submit to the authority of men.

Wow. Why should anyone (adults, I'm talking), by simply being who they are, "submit" to anyone else as a matter of course? I find the statement itself pretty shocking, tell you the truth (although, kudos to you for admitting it, I guess). If your answer only involves quotes from scripture, don't go to a lot of effort to answer - I'm not looking for that sort of an explanation. Not trying to pick on you, but what if someone were to tell you that it was "important for you to submit" to women because they're the ones who give birth? What if someone were to back it up with 2000 (or less) year old scripture? Would your opinion change?

I'm confused, didn't Carter already leave the SBC for a more liberal Baptist association several years ago, and hasn't this particular doctrine already been endorsed by the SBC for several years? I thought this was old news?

I'd thought pretty much the same thing. I've a lot of respect for Jimmy Carter - he's a man of strong faith (which I, admittedly, am not), but he's also willing to reevaluate beliefs associated with his faith. Then, there's the great things he's done (the Nobel peace prize, etc.) after he left office. A good guy.