Jimmy Carter: Speaking for Jesus on Gay Marriage?

“I believe Jesus would. I don’t have any verse in scripture. … I believe Jesus would approve gay marriage, but that’s just my own personal belief. I think Jesus would encourage any love affair if it was honest and sincere and was not damaging to anyone else, and I don’t see that gay marriage damages anyone else.”  So says former President Jimmy Carter.

My mouth dropped when I read this the first time. 

No “verse in Scripture.”  “I believe.”  “That’s just my personal belief.”  “I think.”  In other words, Jimmy Carter claims to know the mind of the God of the universe based on his own musings.  This goes well beyond argumentation about whether Romans 1 really says homosexual behavior is sinful, or whether it’s referring to some other form of sexual deviance.  This is an audacious (and mendacious) claim of personal, extra-biblical knowledge regarding what the God of the universe actually believes about gay marriage. 

So we are now learning the truth behind President Carter’s much publicized split with the Southern Baptist Convention.  It wasn’t over theology, but over ideology.  President Carter had a pre-commitment to “equality” for women and simply wasn’t going to stand for the SBC’s position that only men should pastor churches.  This was, as one family I know called it, “subjugation” of women.  No, this was a simple reading of the ordinary words of Scripture, which reasonably clearly set out the qualifications for pastor, one of which is that the pastor should be a male.  (1 Timothy 3).  One of the mandates in reading the law, at least as I learned it in law school, is that you read words in their ordinary sense unless there is some very clear context which suggests otherwise.  If we can recognize this in reading the law, does not the same idea make sense when reading Scripture?  The passage in 1 Timothy requires significant mental gymnastics to conclude that a woman fits the bill to act as a pastor.  We now know, however, that Jimmy Carter didn’t need to even resort to the mental mechanizations ordinarily used by evangelical feminists; no, he just needed to think about it and develop his own belief.

The disturbing feature of this so-called Christianity is that it bypasses the Bible altogether in favor of a personalized determination about what God wants.  Typically this ends with some sort of notion that God “wants me to be happy.”  Unfortunately, too many people have been sucked in by such Carteristic thinking.  This kind of belief system implies God comes to me on my terms at my discretion in a way of my choosing.  I define God, not God defines me.  It’s like Oprah, who “took God out of the box” by which I think she intended to mean she was not limiting God.  Of course, what it really means is she took God out of the Bible (that awful misogynistic, sexist, homophobic book) and put God into the Oprah box.  Then she drank some chai tea while listening to some new age music with her buddy Eckhart Tolle.   Apparently President Carter has put God into the Jimmy Carter box, which is every bit as dangerous as the Oprah box, perhaps even more so, since he has much greater credibility than Oprah, given his many years as a Sunday school teacher.

Frankly, I don’t have any problem with President Carter making clear he’s fine with gay marriage.  However, one of the main arguments leveled against conservative evangelicals is their claim to know anything about what God says.  It’s ironic, isn’t it?  It’s much like Rachel Held Evans, the “Christian” millennial blogger, demanding that older evangelicals recognize that she and her fellow millennials are oh-so-right about gay marriage and at the same time blaming older evangelicals for making too much of sexual issues, all the while explaining why her take on sexual issues is the utterly correct one.

I’m all for a good argument.  That’s what I did for many years as a litigator.  But let’s have some honesty here.  Jimmy Carter doesn’t get to bash conservative evangelicals for their views, if “I believe,”  “That’s just my personal belief,”  and “I think”  are the relevant standards for determining what God really says about something.  Based on Carter’s statements, anything goes, which means Oprah is right, and so is anyone else who believes something.  So how does he ever make a rational argument that he’s correct and those nasty conservative evangelicals are just plain wrong?  Upon what reasoned basis does he make the claim, when the standard to which he holds himself is merely his own personal belief?  Is Jimmy Carter claiming that somehow his personal beliefs should be weighed more heavily than the next person’s?  Wouldn’t that kind of, sort of, maybe, just ever so slightly, mean that he’s being . . . dare I say it . . . arrogant?  This is one of the arguments so often leveled at bible-believing Christians who say things like homosexuality is sin – they’re being arrogant for suggesting what they believe is right. 

But isn’t that precisely what Jimmy Carter and others like him are saying and doing?

The whole thing is diabolical.  Frankly, Jimmy Carter is doing Satan’s work while Satan laughs in his face.  Never mind that there is no verse, not one, not even a part of a verse in the Bible that condones homosexuality, let alone gay marriage, Jesus is okay with it because Jimmy Carter says so, because Oprah says so, because Rachel Held Evans says so.

Of course, the bottom line here is that not playing “nice” by whatever definition society currently demands, won’t do.  Christians are supposed to be “nice.”  It’s not “nice” to say ugly things like homosexuality is sin.  It’s not nice to oppose “equality.”  It’s not “nice” to tell people the Bible says something if that something offends their sensibilities.  So Jimmy Carter can’t handle not being “nice” and doesn’t want anyone suggesting he’s offended them.  You know: if you can’t say something . . . let’s all say it together . . . nice, don’t say anything at all.

There’s only one problem with this idea when it comes to gay marriage.  Since when is it nice to let people believe something that contradicts the Bible?  Since when is it nice to allow people to continue wallowing in unrepentant, sinful behavior that will land them in the fiery pits of hell for eternity?  Since when is it nice to just let people believe anything, even if it will harm them severely?

Jimmy Carter better start asking himself these questions.  The Bible makes clear that Jesus will, in the end, say to many “I never knew you” despite their claims they know him.  Is Jimmy Carter really sure he knows Jesus?  What about you?  Your eternity depends on it.

Call it Planned Non-Parenthood

So Planned Parenthood sells baby parts.  You are surprised because (a) Planned Parenthood is a  paragon of virtue as organizations go (b) Planned Parenthood loves babies (c) Planned Parenthood only wants what’s best for babies (d) Planned Parenthood wants to make sure ALL babies have an equal chance in life . . . as if.

People: get a grip, Planned Parenthood is one of the most disgusting, grotesquely inhumane organizations that has ever existed.  Hitler couldn’t, in his wildest dreams, imagine creating such an organization that has state funding and has the capacity to wipe out whole generations, all in the name of acting “humanely.”  It is truly bizarre that we have accepted the idea that killing babies is a humane thing to do, when we say it’s “inhumane” for people to hunt wild animals or eat chickens.   Up is down, right is left, evil is good.

What is profoundly disturbing about the recent video that surfaced isn’t that Planned Parenthood sells "harvested tissue" from dead babies, or even that Planned Parenthood is in the dead baby business, but that someone in the higher echelons of the organization could casually discuss these things over dinner, as if talking about the latest episode of their favorite television show or what the kids are doing over the summer.  You know, you just crush this part above and crush this part below and you can still harvest the tissue in between.  Oh, by the way, do you mind if I take the last roll?

We have taken the last step towards moral oblivion.  I know people who are otherwise concerned about what’s going on, but take a blind eye approach to abortion.  They would still argue the “woman’s body argument” or some other such unnecessary nonsense (I have already discussed this at length here).  What we have learned from this video isn’t that we should be disgusted that Planned Parenthood is selling baby parts; no, what we have learned is that Planned Parenthood has an utterly callous view of babies altogether.  The name of the organization is ironic.  It should be called Planned Non-Parenthood.

You see what this tells us is it’s all about definitions.  Planned Parenthood and its supporters say that a baby in the womb is a clump of tissue, a fetus, a sub-human, a non-human.  Frankly, we have defined babies in the womb this way for almost 50 years.  I read one person recently who argued that a fetus simply doesn’t deserve to be called a human because it doesn’t meet some preconceived standard this person had defined as a requirement for humanness.  Isn’t it safer for us to err on the side of caution when defining what it means to be a human being, rather than creating artificial standards which allow us to soothe our consciences when we strike one dead?  We vilify serial killers for doing so, but abortionists are treated as heroes in some quarters.

Look, I understand that in a pluralistic society like the United States not everyone will agree with me that life beings at conception.  But I also understand that we should be worried when we slip into the kind of intellectual coma that we’ve slipped into when it comes to abortion.  The kinds of definitions we offer up today to permit abortion could be used against the very people who created them as they age.  I have watched my father slip into dementia over the past 10 years to the point where he truly recognizes only two people: my mom and my sister.  Everyone else is a faint shadow that struts and frets their hour upon his brain and are heard no more.  Should we define him as less than human because he is no longer an autonomous being, capable of existing on his own?  My dad is every bit as helpless as a baby in the womb right now.  Should someone have a right to terminate his life because he doesn’t fit some arbitrary definition of what it means to be human?  His DNA still says human on it.  By my understanding, he remains in the imago dei – in the image of God.  So are children in the womb.

We have to be careful when we start adding definitions beyond human DNA as characteristic of what it means to be human.  After all, isn’t that what so many racists did when trying to justify treating blacks as less human than whites?  By defining human beings as we have been doing for the past half-century, we are denigrating what it means to be human.  Once we start defining dementia devastated elderly as non-human, who is next?  People with Down’s Syndrome?  Severely autistic people?  What about someone who has severe physical handicaps but has a fully functioning mind?  Where does the definition begin and end?  More importantly, who gets to make such definitions?

Planned Parenthood, and those who are in concert with its goals, have to find a way to salve their consciences because they know, they know full well, that what they are doing is wrong and evil.  The callousness of this doctor talking over a meal as if dead children are nothing more than a commodity speaks of a cold-heartedness that ought to terrify all of us. 

I AM Superman because I self-identify as Superman

Angel Soft recently produced a commercial which has people telling their single mothers “Happy Father’s Day.”  Have we really come to this?

I understand the sentiment, since many people have grown up with single mothers having to carry a burdensome load and doing remarkable jobs bringing up their children in an ever deteriorating culture.  But Moms are not Dads, right? 

DISCLAIMER:  My mom is probably the most wonderful human being I have ever known.  For Mother’s Day, I wrote a post celebrating her qualities A Mom Who is Just Like Jesus.  Her qualities speak for themselves.  But she was not my dad. 

Now, back to the commentary.  No, I’m not going to go on some binge about how awful Angel Soft is for doing this.  The commercial has an inspiring message about mothers doing the best they could under difficult circumstances.  But the underlying message seems to be that moms can be dads.  I guess if Bruce Jenner can be a woman and Rachel Dolezal can be black then moms can be dads.  This reminds me of Doug Henning, the late magician who used to say something like “reality is illusion and illusion is reality.”  Doug was, apparently, more right than he knew.  We can now decide for ourselves what we are, whether it’s illusion or reality.

So I guess we can end Mother’s Day and Father’s Day and just have Parent’s Day, right?  Better yet, let’s just have People Day, where we “celebrate” people in “whatever form” those people come.  Even if it’s your Pomeranian, since you “believe” Poopsy is a person, he is a person.  Better yet, let’s just have Animate Beings Day, then we can celebrate every living thing that is higher than a protozoan.  You know what, let’s just include everything and we’ll have Things Day.  Now Angel Soft can have a commercial in which a rock just sits there and says nothing, but a voice over comes on and says in a deep voice “I am so glad the universe exists and I was spewed out of volcanic eruption.  It’s great to be a rock.”  Now we’re celebrating all possible people, animals, cellular organisms, living things, and inanimate objects.  As Dash in the movie “The Incredibles” told his mom “if everyone is special, no one is special.”

My concern is in our desire to be “fair” and “concerned” and “kind” we are really doing just the opposite.  We are trying to wipe out all possible differences among people as if that makes those differences go away.  Those who preach this kind of dogma better prepare themselves for the ramifications, which are significant and consequential.

For instance, wiping out differences between men and women means that Title IX, the much-loved law that requires colleges to have equality among men’s and women’s programs, goes out the window, right?  I am calling for men to be allowed to compete for spots on the women’s sports teams, immediately.  Moms are dads, after all, and, therefore, women ought to have to compete on a level playing field for spots, including much coveted scholarships that go with those spots.  Quotas of any kind should immediately be disbanded.  Moms are dads, after all.  Let’s make clear that since anybody can be any other body, then all laws aimed at discrimination no longer matter, right?  I mean if Rachel Dolezal “identifies as black” and some other person who is black “identifies as Asian” and so many men are “identifying as women” then discrimination doesn’t make sense.  If you discriminate against me because I’m a man, I’ll just decide to be a woman.  If you discriminate against me because of my race, I’ll change my race.  If you discriminate against me because of my physical characteristics, I’ll identify as something else.  Moreover, can't I self-identify at will, whenever I want?  I can switch back and forth as the mood strikes me, right?  Who gets to say I can't?

Wow, I just had an epiphany while writing this post.  I’ll identify as Superman!  Yes, America (and the world!) I’m Superman.  I identify as Superman.  I’m feeling all man of steely right now.  It doesn’t matter that I can’t fly, that I’m not super strong, and that I don’t have x-ray vision, right?  I mean if I “identify” as Superman, then I am he, correct?  Isn’t that how this “identifying” thing works?  Who gets to say I’m not Superman?  None of you get to tell me I’m not the man of steel, right?

Gosh, the things that I will be able to do.  First, ISIS better watch out.  Second, Iraq you're next.  Third, Keith Olbermann, oh your mouth could use a bar of Dial.  Finally, Joel Klinkenberg from eight grade – dude, you don’t know what’s coming!

Okay, I’ll leave Joel out of this.  It’s not his fault I was a pugnacious little jerk. 

Back to earth.  I can’t just “identify” as something just because that’s what I believe I want.  Moms can’t be Dads.  Why is that such a problem?  There is a very small fraction of people who have true physical or mental “identity” issues.  We don’t change everything because of a few people.  We treat such folks with kindness, compassion, decency and respect.  But we don’t start pretending that all differences are irrelevant or immaterial or that we can wish them away.  Bruce Jenner will always be chromosomally male.  All the surgery, and hormones, and make up won’t fix that for him.  Rachel Dolezal will always be Caucasian.  All the hair weaves and skin darkening won’t change that because it’s part of her DNA.

Moms aren’t Dads.  Men aren’t women.  White people aren’t black people.  Roses aren’t Petunias.  Dogs aren’t cats.  

But wait: breaking news, Justice Anthony Kennedy just determined there is a constitutional right for us to all self-identify in whatever way we see fit.  Brilliant: so it turns out I really am Superman?

 

 

Of Riots and Bribes: How Genesis 1:1 Explains They're Wrong

While difficult to catch in a blog entry, I want to explain the rioting in Baltimore, Maryland and the FIFA bribery scandal with one verse from the Bible: Genesis 1:1.  How?

Genesis 1:1 tells us that God was there “in the beginning” and “created the heavens and the earth.”  This means several things.  First, God existed before time and space.  Second, since he created all that we know, he is in control of it.  Third, it means that he is the ultimate power in or out of the universe.  Finally, it means he has the right to exercise whatever authority he chooses over his creation in whatever manner he chooses.

If there is no God, then time and space are eternal.  No one and no thing is in control of anything.  There is no ultimate power in the universe.  Therefore, there is no authority over creation except that which we create on our own.

So people are rioting in Baltimore and other cities in the United States because they claim there is injustice.  Upon what possible theory can they claim to even understand the idea of injustice?  Injustice presupposes justice exists.  Justice, at least so far as my own puny mind can comprehend it, requires an authority to dispense it.  The authority must come from somewhere.  From whence does the authority come for the people who rioted in Baltimore to claim they are experiencing injustice?  It cannot come from a cold, heartless, non-thinking, non-rational, non-living, non-being universe.  Some might argue justice arises from our laws.  Maybe, but, if there is no God, our laws are mere whims of men, put into place by mortal and finite human beings whose understanding of the totality of our universe doesn’t even begin to fill a thimble.  Justice/injustice, good/bad, right/wrong:  these concepts have no meaning in a universe that merely exists.  Thus, rioters in Baltimore can act without remorse, without thought, without concern, without fear of consequence because in such a world nothing matters anyway.  No one is in control, there is no ultimate power, and there is no ultimate authority.  Consequently, everyone and no one is in control, everyone has ultimate power and no one has any power, and everyone has ultimate authority and no authority, all at the same time.  Riot or not.  Who cares?  The universe takes no notice.

The FIFA bribery scandal arises from the same worldview.  Bribe, don’t bribe.  Does it really matter?  Qatar gets a World Cup, Qatar doesn’t get a World Cup, who cares?  Sepp Blatter and his minions are doing what natural people ought to do when faced with a Godless, mindless, cold, non-living, universe – whatever they can.  The same motives that compel the Baltimore rioters compel the FIFA bureaucrats.  Blatter’s acceptance speech for his presidency was rife with the notion that since there is no transcendent authority, he is the authority.  He makes the rules, then decides who has to follow them and when they must follow those rules.  Seth Blatter was FIFA's God.

You see, in both instances, these folks are doing precisely what comes from a Godless reality in which there is no ultimate authority.  When human beings are the ultimate authority, then each one of us has every right to proclaim ourselves king of however much of this puny planet we can control.  That might mean a few square feet of the City of Baltimore, or it might mean a multi-billion dollar enterprise like FIFA.  In this world, Hillary Clinton’s refrain “what difference does it make” is true.

Of course, the irony is that even those who hold to the view that the universe is all there ever was, is and ever will be still want there to be morals.  Atheists routinely claim they can behave in morally good ways.  But what do morals mean?  Is Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner acting morally in changing his outer body from a man to a woman?  Is the baker who won’t make a wedding cake to celebrate a gay wedding acting morally?  Why does society seem accepting of Jenner but not the baker?  How does one make such distinctions with any rationality without a transcendent authority?

I once had a friend tell me that I was the most rational person he knew EXCEPT when it came to my Christian belief.  Well, my friend was wrong.  The opposite is clearly true.  It’s irrational to claim Jenner is okay but the baker is wrong when you can’t point to anything other than human ordained rules as your authority, since there is no rational basis for claiming any one human authority should be followed rather than another.  This is mere preference, and is precisely identical to whether I prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream (vanilla, by the way). 

If, however, there is a transcendent authority to whom we all owe allegiance, then that’s a game changer.  Then, suddenly, morals make sense.  Suddenly one can see the riots in Baltimore as a symptom of problems in the world due to man-made systems which consistently and routinely fail those intended to benefit from those systems.  The riots are immoral because it’s wrong to harm others just because you have been harmed, not because human beings have decided this is true, but because the transcendent creator of the universe says so.  It is wrong for FIFA officials to engage in underhanded bribery not because we have laws that say so, but because fraud is lying and the transcendent creator of the universe demands that we not lie.

I am regularly stunned by the complete lack of rationality by those who say they hold it dear.  Atheists of the world: you are irrational if you ever claim any human authority should be followed over any other human authority – you have no rational or even reasonable basis for making this claim other than your own self­-proclaimed love of reason, which is, itself, based on nothing more than your mere preference.  The only rational basis for arguing there is any order to be followed in this chaotic world is to return to Genesis 1:1 and recognize that “In the beginning, God . . .” and acknowledge the transcendent creator of this world has both the right and authority to tell us how to operate it.  Until you do, we’ll continue to have riots and bribes.