Jimmy Carter's "Celebration"
Recently, Brother Bob Ross sent to his email list this opinion piece about former President Jimmy Carter's plans for a "Baptist Celebration." I am posting it for the benefit of Flyswatter readers.I find it interesting that Pastor Wade Burleson seems to be lining up with Carter. Does Burleson not know about Jimmy Carter's support of the moderate/liberal factions? Or does he just not care?
Charles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
JIMMY CARTER'S "CELEBRATION OF A NEW BAPTIST COVENANT" TO BE HELD IN EARLY 2008 IN ATLANTA, GEORGIA [05/21--2007]
We always have observed former President Jimmy Carter apparently to be a sometimes "conniving" type of man. His "Christian character," if it may be called that, has more than once demonstrated itself to be made more of a cunning, pragmatic fabric than anything else.
For instance, we first became acquainted with Carter's bane years ago when he was elected Governor of Georgia. A pro-Carter book later said Carter admitted that he pulled so many "dirty tricks" in running for Governor in Georgia against Lester Maddox in 1970 that he "felt so bad" he was compelled to "pray for forgiveness"! -- (The Miracle of Jimmy Carter, by Norton and Slosser, Logos 1976, page 48).
"You know, I have temptations, to which I sometimes yield," he said (ibid., page 49).
"It was unquestionably a campaign of expedience. And it worked. Carter confessed it all later -- to friends and to the Lord" (ibid., page 48).
Lester Maddox, also a Baptist, called Carter "the most dishonest man I have ever known" (ibid., page 48).
Jimmy Carter was the first candidate for President who openly, deliberately, and effectively engaged in "using" religion to help get himself elected. Even John Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, had not noticeably attempted to use his religion to get votes. Carter, however, must receive the credit for being the modern "Father" of the religio-politico pragmatism which later became more associated in the 80s and 90s with the "Moral Majority," the "Christian Coalition," the Jesse Jackson-Al Sharpton types, and other "religious" personalities who sought to utilize religion to promote political candidates.
Also, Carter was the first candidate in my lifetime who made overtures to the "gay community" for their support. He said, "I oppose all forms of discrimination on the basis of sexual preference and I want to assure you that all policies of the federal government would reflect this commitment" (Houston Chronicle, 8/28/76, page 2, section 1).
Examples of Carter's pragmatically using his identity as a "born again Christian" for political advantage was illustrated in his complicity in the publication of The Miracle of Jimmy Carter by the Charismatic publishing house, Logos, in June 1976.
Another book, Why Not the Best? was published by Broadman Press of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1975 when Broadman was under the control of "moderates" such as James L. Sullivan. Sullivan was head of the SBC's Sunday School Board and its Broadman Press which had previously published the heretical "Genesis" book by heretic Ralph Elliott and the heretical "Broadman Commentary."
On the back cover of the Logos book, there is a photo of the Carter family, and he is described as "Jimmy Carter--man of faith and politics."
On the back cover of the Broadman book, Carter is described as a "Christian American."
Both of these books were published by the tens of thousands and targeted the religious market, with the intent to seduce Christians to vote for Carter out of consideration for his self-proclaimed religious dedication. The title of the Broadman book, Why Not the Best, implied that Carter would be "best," and he had the Christian religion to prove it.
Carter embellished himself by publicizing his devotion to religion, saying, "My religion is as natural to me as breathing" (ibid., page 1). "For the first eight primary elections, faith in Jimmy Carter was the commodity he was selling to the voters," wrote Slosser and Norton (ibid., page 5).
Carter very craftily solicited and piously reveled in the support of those professing Christian people who later would become identified as "the Religious Right" in the 1980s and thereafter. One religious leader of that time, head of a group allied with Pat Robertson, said of Carter's candidacy, "God has his hand upon Jimmy Carter to run for president. Of course, he's wise enough not to be presumptuous with the will of God. But he's moving in the will of God" (ibid., page 9).
Carter manipulated the endorsement of the now-defunct National Courier, "a Christian newspaper," edited by the same Bob Slosser, the longtime associate of Pat Robertson. In fact, as I recall, this tabloid was apparently established as an instrument to promote Carter's candidacy for President. Slosser, who worked on Robertson's staff at CBN, said of Carter: "Jimmy Carter was one of the best things to happen to American evangelical Christianity in this century" (ibid., page 10).
The Robertson staff member said "many people" felt that Carter "might be moving under the direction of God himself" and his election "could bring a spiritual revival to the United States and government" (ibid., page xii).
A full-page photo of Carter standing in front of the Plains, Georgia Baptist church building, holding an open Bible, appears in the center photo-section of the book. The "message" to American Christians was clear -- vote for a Bible-believing Christian for President.
Carter's sister, Ruth Stapleton Carter (now deceased), who was noted for her "inner healing" philosophy, was credited by Carter as giving him "advice and counsel" (ibid., page 133). As I recall, his sister was popular with the Charismatics and the Pat Robertson contingent.
What America got, religiously, when it elected Jimmy Carter was an admirer of Neo-orthodox theologians who spawned the anti-inerrancy movement which had infected the Southern Baptist seminaries in the 1950's. It did not get a "revival." One of the offspring of the Neo infiltration is the current crop of elitists who run the Baptist General Convention of Texas and led in the anti-SBC, anti-inerrancy campaign in recent years. Their use of Carter in promotion of their cause a few years ago was not at all a surprise.
At the height of the anti-inerrancy campaign in Texas in 2000, just prior to the state convention in Corpus Christi, Carter connived with billionaire John Baugh's "Texas Baptists Committed" group to promote the cause of the anti-errancy camp in Texas. According to the Associated Baptist Press, Carter held a meeting with David Currie, editor of the TBC newsletter, and gave his support to the anti-inerrantists by means of a mass-mailout to Texas Baptists.
>>
"I had never been involved in the political struggle for control of the SBC and have no desire to do so," Carter wrote in the letter, which was mailed to 75,000 Baptists nationwide by the moderate group Texas Baptists Committed. . . . He decided to go public with his decision after meeting, at his initiation, with moderate Baptist leaders from Texas, Virginia and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. . . . his letter endorsed a taped message on the topic by Charles Wade, executive director of the Baptist General Convention of Texas, which was included in the mass mailing. . . . Texas Baptists are locked in a dispute with SBC leaders over a proposed budget cut of $5.3 million to SBC seminaries and selected other entities. A vote on the proposal is scheduled at the BGCT's annual meeting Oct. 30-31 [2000] in Corpus Christi.
Carter initiated a meeting in Plains Sept. 28 with David Currie, director of Texas Baptist Committed, and Becky Matheny, director of the moderate Georgia Baptist Heritage Council, during which he shared his convictions about the SBC.
"We said, 'It would be great for Baptists to know how you felt,'" Currie recalled. "He said he was thinking about sending a letter to folks. That's where the idea of linking the [letter and tape] came together."
Carter's letter and Wade's 45-minute tape were mailed beginning Oct. 18 to Texas Baptist Committed's national mailing list at a cost of more than $75,000, said Currie.
>>Associated BP
[http://www.abpnews.com/abpnews/story.cfm?newsId=2411]
In writing this letter for mailing by Charles Wade's BGCT anti-inerrantists, once again we saw a demonstration of Carter's cunning craft. He collaborated with the chicanerous heretic, David Currie, front man for "deep pockets" John Baugh (founder of SYSCO Foods, a multi-billion dollar company based in Houston), and the elitist "Baptists Committedites" such as Charles Wade of the Baptist General Convention of Texas who oppose the view that the Bible is the inerrant, verbally inspired Word of God.
As for Carter, due to his long infatuation with Neo-orthodoxy which he attained from reading heterodoxists such as Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Tillich, Karl Barth and Soren Kirdegaard, made him easy prey for the clever, captious Currie and the anti-inerrantists.
All the while -- at the same time in 2000 when Carter, Currie, Wade and the anti-inerrancy camp was engaged in their campaign -- corruption was taking place in the southern part of Texas where large amounts of money were being deceptively drained from the BGCT's coffers by supposed "church planters." This tragic revelation came to light a few months ago, and Wade has recently announced he will resign as Executive Director of the BGCT. This resignation comes in the wake of mass criticisms over the misappropriation of millions in the Valley. Now Carter is seeking to "stick his nose" into Baptist affairs again by means of this "New Baptist Covenant" meeting in 2008. Now he is feigning an interest in promoting a meeting of Baptists "about the gospel," according to Pastor Wade Burleson, one of the invited conservative Southern Baptists. You may read Burleson's rather embellishing article at this blogsite: >http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2007/05/that-which-unites-us-is-gospel-of.html<
A more realistic comment about Carter and what he believes about the Gospel may be read elswhere. See "Jimmy Carter Revises the Gospel . . . Again" on Dr. R. Albert Mohler's blogsite at: >http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=909<
posted by Charles @ 11:19 PM
5 Comments:
I'm not sure about what you have written here, but I don't think that Wade Burleson is compromising himself by going to this meeting. If anything I think he is trying to show Southern Baptists do care about issues that these Baptists say they care about as well (poverty, civil rights, justice, etc.), but at the same time looking into this group for himself to see if that is indeed their agenda (or something much more political). Burleson has shown himself to be definitively conservative and unwilling to back down from his theological convictions. I doubt that Carter will persuade him much in that regard.
One thing I did notice about your article here that I find quite strange is that you describe Ralph Elliot as a heretic and the Broadman Commentary as heretical, yet you describe the writings of Paul Tilich and Karl Barth simply as heterodoxical. Elliot's views on creationism don't quite compare to Tilich's or Barth's views on salvation or their Christology. I think you got this backwards.
A NEW CONVENTION IN THE MAKING?
Wade Burleson says on his blog:
"If it was said once, it was said a half dozen times -- there is no desire by anyone participating in organizing the convocation to begin any new convention, any new denomination or any new Baptist entity. Everyone wishes to maintain autonomy. The goal is simply to convocate, dialogue, build relationships and ultimately encourage one another in the fulfillment of the Great Commission, and to rejoice over what others are accomplishing."
Link: http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2007/05/that-which-unites-us-is-gospel-of.html
I am surprised, Charles, that Wade Burleson would give any credence to propaganda by the "Downstream" anti-inerrantists who have been trying for years to bring together all the anti-conservatives into one organization. They don't really need to form a new convention -- they have had one for about eight years
Perhaps Wade does not recall that the significant leaders of "Downstreamers" here in Texas, who like to call themselves "Moderate" or "Mainstream Baptists,"
have ALREADY INCORPORATED A NEW CONVENTION and hope to somehow bring together all those groups which are anti-inerrantists.
The Incorporation papers for this new Convention, called "The Baptist Convention of the Americas," were filed on October 16, 1998 and are available from the Office of the Secretary of State, Austin, Texas.
The Incorporation papers listed the following Texas residents as incorporators: John F. Baugh of Houston, Paul Powell of Tyler, W. Winfred Moor of Waco, and Herbert H. Reynolds of Waco -- all four of them being anti-inerantist leaders in the Baptist General Convention of Texas. (Baugh has passed away since the incorporation was filed).
I have a copy of the Incorporation papers, and this incorporation was discussed in an article by the Baptist Press on March 1, 2000. Link: http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:U2jEZvyH3BIJ:www.baptistpress.net/bpnews.asp%3FID%3D5374+%22Baptist+Convention+of+the+Americas%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&ie=UTF-8
Herbert Reynolds, in whose brain this Convention was conceived and hatched, explained the purpose of the new convention in articles on David Currie's "Texas Baptists Committed" website and the "Mainstream Baptists" website of Bruce Prescott.
In a nutshell, Reynolds envisioned the collaboration of all the various and sundry "Downstream" Baptists who have anti-Southern Baptist Convention sentiments and axes to grind, which would compete against the conservative Southern Baptist Convention.
The large Baptist General Convention of Texas and its institutions, controlled by the anti-inerrantists, would ostensibly serve as the chief cornerstone for the new Baptists of the the Americas superstructure.
Carter has already been a tool used by the anti-inerrantists in Texas, as he wrote the widely- circulated letter which supported the anti-SBC cause of the BGCT in 2000, defunding the SBC seminaries.
I think this forthcoming
"Celebration" of Jimmy Carter's is just another instance by Carter in assisting the ultimate unification of the anti-inerrantists into one convention or organization.
REPLY TO D.R.
d. r. said --
One thing I did notice about your article here that I find quite strange is that you describe Ralph Elliot as a heretic and the Broadman Commentary as heretical, yet you describe the writings of Paul Tilich and Karl Barth simply as heterodoxical. Elliot's views on creationism don't quite compare to Tilich's or Barth's views on salvation or their Christology. I think you got this backwards.
Well, I did not intend to cheat either Elliott or the others named of what term describes their views. They all deserve any and every term which indicates their views are unscriptural. Move the terms around as you wish -- all of them fit the views of these gentlemen.
As for Wade Burleson, why he or any other would walk across the street to hear Jimmy Carter on either religion or politics is rather amusing.
jwiADVENTURES OF "iMONK"
Bob to Charles:
Have you noticed, Charles, that the "iMonk" has a new gig? He says he is "going back to an SBC church." Link: http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/on-going-back-to-an-sbc-church
Who says "we can't have revival now"!
I suppose iMonk must have run-out of verbal viperity for Joel Osteen, public invitations, and other objects of his "shock-blog" act.
Anyway . . . don't you think iMonk and Jimmy Carter might be cut from the same cloth? They both slam-and-slash at Southern Baptists, but when they want to be pampered, to whom do they apply for cuddling? Of course, back to "Mother" -- the Southern Baptists!
d.r., Hello!
You wrote about Wade Burleson, "If anything I think he is trying to show Southern Baptists do care about issues that these Baptists say they care about as well (poverty, civil rights, justice, etc.)."
Southern Baptists do not need Wade Burleson to "show" that they care about these things. The Southern Baptist Disaster Relief feeds more people in disaster areas than anyone.
Civil rights? On what basis? Race? If you know of a Southern Baptist church that will not accept members of another race, please tell me.
Burleson's agenda, in my opinion, is to oppose Paige Patterson in all that he does. If Burleson has to team up with Tom Ascol to do it, so be it. Jimmy Carter? No problem. It seems to me that as long as someone is opposed to Paige Patterson, then they are a friend of Wade B.
Charles
Post a Comment
<< Home