Nelson Mandela has organized an independent group of world leaders called The Elders. They advocate peace building, address human suffering, and promote the shared interests of humanity. Among their ranks is Jimmy Carter.
This week, as a representative of The Elders, Mr. Carter published a declaration in the Guardian criticizing all religious outlooks that reduce women to a second class status. He wrote of his own break in 2000 with the Southern Baptist Convention, after a sixty year relationship: "It was ... an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be 'subservient' to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service. This was in conflict with my belief - confirmed in the holy scriptures - that we are all equal in the eyes of God"
Mr. Carter lifted up The Elders' clear call for sexual equality: "The justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a Higher Authority, is unacceptable."
In my estimation this pronouncement fits into a larger issue of religion and civilization. Religion in various manifestations bears considerable responsibility for the historic and continuing subjugation of women. Is then the beneficent, global, yet nevertheless religious outlook of The Elders enough to reform deep and continuing forms of religious abuse? Is religion the answer to the problem it helped create? In this regard pundits are asking, why did it take Mr. Carter sixty years to break with the Southern Baptists in this matter?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Your questions echoed mine. The "conversions" of Carter, Mandela, and others of the Elders are laudable, but they leave unaddressed the deeper question of why these good people had held on for a lifetime to holy books with unholy ideas.
For every line in the Bible that Jimmy Carter can quote to show why he has come to believe in, say, the equality of women, there are other lines that teach women's subservience. UUs have known this for a long time! My father -- a longtime member of the Youngstown, Ohio church -- had a file of what I called a devil's bible, with opposing quotes about women, witches, adultery, murder, and so on. Not only did he teach me that the devil quotes scripture for his own purposes, he showed me that whatever words any arguer wants can be found there.
Since the Jewish and Christian Bibles are so full of contradictions, how can a person of true good will use only one set of quotations to buttress an argument? Any argument that the orthodox use to show their own good will winds up chasing its own tail. Clearly, the one lesson we can draw is that scripture cannot be used to provide answers to every question.
What we are left with, then, is the question of: How to arrive at a set of beliefs that we can trust? And that's why we need our UU congregations.
I have to say, as someone familiar with the culture and doctrines of the Southern Baptist denomination, that I recognize very little of what they actually believe in Carter's characterization.
I personally hesitate to characterize myself as a "good person", but as someone who takes my cues from the Bible (having read it in its entirely, of course, and much of it many times) I have to confess to being perplexed at why some find that prospect so appalling.
I haven't always been a Christian, but found the Bible to be a unique source of answers and insight when I finally cracked it open. I deliberately expose myself to a range of ideas and worldviews, and honestly have not found any other source of truth that has so resonated with me.
The practical criticisms that are often directed at the Bible (contradictions, etc.) seem to me to characterize virtually anything human beings touch or endeavor to accomplish.
Post a Comment