Left in the Cart?

The magazine of the Evangelical Alliance (EA) is titled Idea. The November / December issue has sparked a storm of controversy. The storm centres around remarks in an interview with ex-President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, given to the editor Rick Cline.

Loosely based around Mr. Carter’s new book, Faith and Freedom: The Christian Challenge for the World, there are a number of helpful insights on the political front, as the ex-occupant of the White House gives his opinions on the war on terror, Iraq, President Bush, Tony Blair and world poverty. From this point of view the piece is well worth reading. But problems arise in the comments of the 82-year-old Baptist concerning the Church and the direction it should take in confronting the modern world. Now, of course, because a magazine carries an interview with someone it does not necessarily mean that the magazine endorses the thoughts of the person interviewed. However, rather than distancing EA from Carter’s opinions, the editorial piece appeared to more than acquiesce with what was said.

Unity the key issue

So what was said? We are told that the Church is now more divided than it has been at any previous time in history. ‘The key issue for Carter is restoring unity within the Church. And to achieve this, he strongly believes that we need to base our definition of what it means to be a Christian or an evangelical on the essentials.’ I think most people would be happy with that approach. We must major on what is of primary importance and agree to disagree over secondary issues so that we can stand together.

But the obvious question is where do you draw the line between primary and secondary issues? And this is where the controversy ignites. Mr. Carter is prepared to draw that line at a point where not only most conservative evangelicals, but even EA itself in the past, would be (rightly) most alarmed.

Controversial boundaries

Carter says, ‘We believe this: that we are saved by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ. Period. And if you believe that, to me that is an adequate definition of a Christian. And then you can decide; individual communities can say we’re going to have women preachers or we’re not going to have women preachers, we’re going to accept homosexual members or we’re not.’ He later goes on to say, ‘And I don’t think that anyone should be excluded from acceptance as a fellow Christian within a community just because they happen to be homosexual.’ And again, ‘I don’t endorse gay marriage, but I think a civil union between homosexuals should be completely acceptable.’

Now I apologise if I have misread what Mr. Carter is saying, but he appears to be encouraging us all to accept active homosexuality as a valid part of the Christian life and of the church. In other words he is counting it as a secondary issue.

This reading of Mr. Carter’s comments is substantiated by editorial comment within the interview: ‘The sexuality debate features strongly in Carter’s book, alongside other contentious issues like divorce, abortion, the death penalty and the role of women. He describes these issues as being a distraction to [sic] the central truth of the gospel.’ Such an approach has been adopted by liberals for many years but not generally by evangelicals. Consequently many people are asking if this is the road down which EA now intends to lead its members?

Bad theology

In order to defend his position, Mr. Carter produces a number of ill-judged assertions related to the Bible. ‘As a matter of fact, Jesus never mentioned homosexuality or any aspect of it in his many listings of sinfulness for which humans need to be wary or avoid.’ Really? Doesn’t the word porneia (Mark 7.21) covers all sexual perversion? (And, by the way, Jesus doesn’t mention internet pornography either — so does that make it OK too?) ‘I know that it is mentioned by St. Paul and also in several places in the Old Testament. But when Paul mentions homosexuality, it’s always in a litany of other things including selfishness and so forth.’ I am at a loss to follow Carter’s logic here. Is he saying that homosexuality is no worse than any other sin? If he is, I can go with that. But it is still sin, like all the rest. Or is he saying that because there are selfish people in the church we should also accept homosexual practise in the church? But I thought we all recognise selfishness as a sin and condemn it in ourselves and seek to fight it in our lives. Shouldn’t homosexuality be put in the same category? Or are we to say, ‘Yes, let’s accept homosexual practice and let’s accept selfishness as well as a valid part of the Christian life.’ Mr. Carter may have been a great politician but he is not a great theologian.

Bad history

Again Mr. Carter speaks of St. Paul and says, ‘He pointed out some very important issues in those early days. Do you have to become a Jew first and become circumcised before you can become a Christian? That split the church. Can you eat meat offered to idols….? Paul said, “Look, these things are important, and you can disagree over them, but don’t let them divide you from other Christians.” That’s the same thing as homosexuality and abortion and the death penalty now.’

Leaving aside the fact that Paul certainly did not see the controversy in Galatia over circumcision as in the same category as eating meat offered to idols, the plain fact is that there was no long-term serious division in the church over circumcision and the reason was, not because Paul kept quiet and allowed different people to take different views, but because he fought for the truth of the gospel and won the day (Acts 15).

Bad timing

This whole issue has reared its head at an unfortunate time for EA. The government has just published its Sexual Orientation Regulations. Further, this autumn many Christian Unions (affiliated to UCCF) have been facing great pressure on the campuses. One of the crucial issues over which they have been heroically taking a stand is the upholding of biblical and traditional standards with respect to sexual practice. Richard Cunningham, Director of UCCF, has written: ‘In Edinburgh, the University (not just the Student Union / Association) has forbidden the CU to hold their sex and relationships course (PURE) anywhere on campus. The stated reason is that the course (which simply teaches an orthodox view of sex and marriage) is homophobic.’

If EA are endorsing the position taken by Jimmy Carter, then basically they would be saying to the CUs that they are wasting their time in making such a stand. No, more than that, the implication would be that in taking such a stand they are actually damaging the case for the gospel by making such a fuss over a secondary issue.

What is the gospel?

I recognise that at the best of times the job of the EA is a very difficult one. It exists to represent evangelicals publicly to a nation whose culture is often hostile to the gospel. Further, it has the difficult task of seeking to hold together a constituency which is doctrinally very broad. But, although I have every sympathy in this respect with those who seek to steer the EA ship, surely it is a mistake to flirt with Mr. Carter’s stance, presenting no caveat to what he said. We would encourage those who are members of EA to ask themselves where EA is going, and if they disagree with the opinions expressed in Idea to graciously but firmly make their feelings known to the EA leadership.

Do we believe that the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is life-changing? Do we believe that becoming a Christian entails taking on a fight against all sin in our lives, whether it be homosexuality or selfishness or anything else? Do we believe that God has power and grace to transform our lives through his word and his Spirit?

Yes, the unity of the church is of great importance. But at what price do we seek unity? The wise words of John Stott seem very appropriate here. ‘In my own conviction, the visible unity of the church (in each region or country) is both biblically right and practically desirable, and we should be actively seeking it.

At the same time, we should ask ourselves a simple but searching question. If we are to meet the enemies of Christ with a united Christian front, with what kind of Christianity are we going to face them? The only weapon with which the opponents of the gospel can be overthrown is the gospel itself. It would be a tragedy if, in our desire for their overthrow, the only effective weapon in our armoury were to drop from our hands. United Christianity which is not true Christianity will not gain the victory over non-Christian forces, but will itself succumb to them.’ (Christ the Controversialist, Tyndale Press, 1970, page 20).

An interview with ex-President Carter has raised questions over the direction of EA

Unity the key issue

Controversial boundaries

Bad theology

Bad history

Bad timing

What is the gospel?

John Benton

Main Articles

Other articles