President Jimmy Carter: The intersection of faith and politics.

Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) was one of many Christian Presidents of the US. His passing on (29 Dec 2024) is a good time to reflect on his legacy. My focus is more limited. I would like to examine how his faith affected his politics; and how his politics affected his faith.

Jimmy Carter was a committed Christian who taught Sunday School from the age of 18, and throughout the rest of his life. Jimmy Carter openly identified himself as a “born-again evangelical Christian” from the Southern Baptist Convention. What does it mean to be an evangelical? It is one who identifies with the historic Christian faith and opposes liberal Christianity. At the same time, Carter was a Democrat, which would suggest to us at least some liberal tendencies.

He is largely known as the President who was better at being an ex-President than a President. His work through Habitat for Humanity is rightly applauded, as he tirelessly helped to build homes for the homeless.

Christian and President

Jimmy Carter is widely regarded as a good man, but a weak President. Americans never forgave him for how he handled the Iranian hostage crisis. He made America look weak on the world stage. This stood in stark contrast to how the hostages were immediately released when Reagan came to power. He also could not manage the 1979 oil embargo which caused fuel shortages and huge spikes in oil prices. This led to his creating the Department of Energy. It was also during his Presidency that the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

Jimmy Carter had some significant successes as a President. The Camp David Accords brought peace between Israel and Egypt. He negotiated with the Soviet Union a new nuclear arms treaty (SALT II), which though imperfect, was better than none. The issue of the Panama Canal which Carter surrendered to Panama has returned to the spotlight under Trump. What is this issue about?

The US built the Panama Canal (1903) after several failed attempts by France. In return, the US had permanent rights to the “Canal Zone.” Increasing local Panamanian resentment led Carter to sign a treaty (1977) to surrender the Canal Zone to Panama in the year 2000. Trump is saying that Carter sold out on America. While it is controversial, I think it is hard to make a simple case to say that what Carter did was good for America. This treaty is currently presented as epic level stupidity. While Trump is again lying that Chinese soldiers now operate the Panama Canal, there is consensus that there is significant and growing Chinese influence in the operations of the Panama Canal. Regardless of the current or future status of the Panama Canal, it would not be unreasonable to say that Carter was foolish to give away what belonged to the American people. One needs to keep in mind that the US is a maritime power and not a continental power, so the surrender of control over shipping routes is an extremely weighty matter.

(In our Singapore context, it is like a leader who chooses to give up our drinking water treaty rights because the other side objects to it.)

Many US Presidents were and are cultural Christians. Many were deists, some were unitarians, etc. In recent memory, only Jimmy Carter (D) and George W Bush (R) presented themselves clearly as Christians. (There is no evidence that Obama (D) or Trump (R) are true followers of Jesus.) From the world’s point of view, most of the US Presidents are Christians. But from the evangelical perspective, there are not many Christian Presidents.

What does it mean to be a Christian and to be a political leader at the same time? Carter may have called himself an evangelical, but his values are politically liberal, evidenced by his belonging to the Democratic Party (liberal). Commentators like to say that Jimmy Carter’s faith influenced his actions. But I would like to suggest that long before his faith influenced his politics, his politics shaped his faith.

I would question if Carter was a true evangelical. In the Camp David Accord, he asserted that they (Jew, Egyptian, and Christian) “worship the same God.” This is impossible for a true evangelical. The Allah of Islam is not the God of the Bible. They are mutually exclusive and cannot be the same God. Only a liberal would say that.

Carter identified himself as a progressive (liberal) evangelical. This is an oxymoron. Evangelicals reject liberal theology. You cannot be “A and non-A” at the same time. But I will allow for Carter to have a lapse in good theological judgment. The problem is that Carter called himself a progressive (liberal) evangelical. The impression I get is that he is more progressive(liberal) than evangelical. He did have certain evangelical values, like human rights. But his method of operation was almost aways liberal / Democrat in style.

Other indications that Carter was a liberal Christian are:

Jimmy Carter supported same sex marriage, saying “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.” (Bux Ryan (July 2015), “Jimmy Carter Says Jesus Would Approve Of Gay Marriage” HuffPost.)

Jimmy Carter strongly opposed the death penalty. (Carter “Nobel Prize speech” CNN Archives. December 10, 2002). This is a liberal and not a biblical position which plainly requires the death penalty for murder.

Jimmy Carter strongly supported Kamala Harris, who is a woke advocate. Carter wanted to live long enough to vote for Harris. (“Jimmy Carter, 100, Fulfills Goal of Voting for Kamal Harris” Yahoo News, 2024-10-16.)

Jimmy Carter’s faith is first affected by his liberal politics. And his liberal faith that affected what he did as president. Sadly, his faith was a highly mistaken liberal Christianity. Consequently, his administration reflects the liberal elements of his Christianity.

In addition to the failure of liberal theology, Jimmy Carter was fundamentally ineffective as a person. He was not a capable President. He did not show iron in his character or mental superiority in his thinking. His only consistency was his liberalism.

He had a compassionate heart. That is to his credit. But that is hardly the qualification to be a President. We do not think the compassionate heart of Lillian Trasher (or any name you wish to insert) would make her a good President of the US and leader of the free world.

Conclusion

When we look at Jimmy Carter, we are reminded that Christians must not blindly support a national leader because he is a Christian. Certainly, we would prefer a Christian as an insurance against persecution, and perhaps even policies that are favorable to the practice of the Christian faith. Yet, we need to note that there are many different expressions of the Christian faith. Some (wrong) expressions of the Christian faith when applied to politics can have deleterious effects on the nation.

(Another example of this is the pacifist Christian. Imagine a pacifist leader who dismantles the country’s armed forces and then the police force. This type of Christian would be disastrous for a nation.)

In a strange way, if a person holds on to a poor expression of the Christian faith (like Carter), it is better for the nation that a clear-minded person takes the lead even though he may not be a Christian.

What is true is that we should not put anti-Christ / anti-Christian politicians to power. This includes those who promote a cult (like Mormonism), or a false deity. A national leader must respect all religions and protect them from harassment. That is to say, we don’t want a “Christian” leader who promises to persecute other religions; as much as we don’t want the champion of another religion in power to persecute us.

God want us to pray for our national leaders, regardless of their faith.

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. (1 Timothy 2:1-2, ESV)

Politicians come and go. Our hope must be anchored in Jesus, our resurrected King of kings and Lord of lords. Not on politicians.

Pastor Peter Eng (@theWell, 4 January 2025) 

⧫