Being Fair to Jimmy Carter

The highly combustible Benghazi hearings which started today have rightly focused Americans on the importance of international events.

Last week I attended an international conference in Panama with three hundred leaders from South, Central and North America. It included a delightful trip along the Panama Canal, one of the wonders of the world–where we marveled at the sight of huge container ships that brought five million dollars a day into the Panamanian economy and also at the lush tropical paradise which included crocodiles, monkeys, iguanas and toucans.

But the most instructive moment for me was a dinner conversation I shared with a long-time friend from Argentina who is both an attorney and highly influential political leader in that nation. What he told me about Jimmy Carter taught me a lesson on the importance of fairness.

First of all, I must confess that I am generally not a fan of our 39th president who was the leader of the free world from 1977-81.

James Earl Carter burst onto the political scene in the mid-seventies after a naval career which included expertise in nuclear physics on submarines and managing the family peanut farm in Plains, Georgia. He served two terms in the Georgia Senate, then became governor of the state as a launching pad for a run to the White House.

When I first heard about his presidential aspirations, I was encouraged that a man who said he was born again” was seeking the highest office in the land. But the more I studied his worldview and policies, I concluded that though he might be Christian in heart, it didn’t translate to his mind where public policies would be created.

How did I come to this conclusion? I was writing my first book in 1976 and decided to contrast the policy positions of Gerald Ford the current post-Watergate president with Ronald Reagan his primary challenger and Jimmy Carter who won the Democratic nomination.

Before the age of computers and e-mail, I wrote all three campaign headquarters asking for quotes from the three men on thirty areas of American public policy. I then compiled the quotes which were first of all published during the summer of 1976 in an Intercessors for America newsletter so that the Body of Christ could be aware of who they were voting for.

Thus, the first “presidential scorecard” was born.

At the end of the summer, I turned my findings into a small book which came our just before the national elections in October 1976. The book was called What About Jimmy Carter? According to many, I was the first Christian leader to raise questions about the worldview of  our 39th president.

The rest is history. Carter’s administration was characterized by “malaise” from the very beginning–a micro-management incompetence that hurt the America economy, caused large gas lines, made America look weak around the world (remember the botched attempt to free the hostages in Iran?), and led to a Reagan landslide in 1980.

Since that time, Jimmy Carter has been labeled one of the worst or most ineffective presidents of the 20th century.

So, for much of my life, I have shared that view and am known for it because I was the first to say so in print.

Now back to my Argentine friend. We were having a meal at a beautiful marina restaurant along the shores of the Panama Canal. Ships were passing by, the air was warm and humid, and I was excited about dining with my friend whom I had not seen in twenty years. During that time he had been very engaged in politics and renewal in his home nation including his law practice, a national television program, and close involvement with some prominent Argentine political leaders.

After catching up on the past decades, my friend turned to me and asked me an intriguing question:

“Ron – who do you think is the most respected US president in Latin America?”

I wasn’t sure, though my thoughts turned to Reagan, Clinton, and others. I even entertained the notion of George W. Bush who got the largest support of Latin voters for a Republican in recent memory.

Then my friend gave the shocking answer: “The most admired president by far in most of Latin America is Jimmy Carter.”

That sentence was hard to process. Jimmy Carter? The bungling technocrat who was the brunt mostly of jokes in the USA (except for his good work with Habitat for Humanity since leaving office). I could hardly believe what he was saying but was determined to hear him out.

My friend went on to explain that it was Jimmy Carter during the 1970s who championed human rights around the world and those ideas took route in Latin America. He shared how his own nation was deeply changed by Carter’s influence and cast off a cruel dictatorship as a result of his leadership. The same thing happened in Chile, Brazil and a number of Latin nations.

Over the course of an hour, my friend systematically presented the evidence (that’s what lawyers do) that Jimmy Carter’s human rights bully pulpit was the largest contributing factor to the liberation of the Southern Hemisphere. At the same time the sleepy Catholic continent was becoming largely evangelical and Pentecostal, Carter helped break the chains of political tyranny leading to free governments being born for the first time. These two developments were the main causes of Latin’s Americas surge in prosperity and global influence.

He also went on to say that Ronald Reagan was the second most admired president because he also championed human rights and expanded the view of freedom that Jimmy Carter began.

So I asked my friend, “So does that make Reagan more respected than Carter” (I was still hanging on to my bias). “No.” he replied. “Carter is the most respected president because his human rights vision began our pathway to freedom.”

Our meal ended and I felt a little convicted. I had been a merciless critic of Jimmy Carter for years, and now I had been presented evidence that God truly used him to help liberate the Hispanic world. I’ve always believed and taught that truth is based on evidence. So I needed to be fair, to re-evaluate my position, and learn from this new set of facts.

If you have a USA-centered view of life, it’s easy to view James Earl Carter as a presidential failure. He didn’t do much to help America; The economy got worse; He was a poor manager with a whiny personality; He was liberal on social issues and weak on foreign policy.

But Jimmy Carter, according to many Latin Americans, is the man that God used to free 400 million people from the clutches of political darkness.

If that’s true, he needs to be given credit for that blessing–and I, among others, must be fair to his legacy. It’s fine to criticize the poor economic policies or inept management style. But it’s also right to give him kudos for helping to liberate a continent.

No small feat indeed!

Dr. Martin Luther King once said:  “There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies.”

At the heart of this quote is the importance of humility when both viewing ourselves and the accomplishments of others.

Later in the week I was commissioned at a conference into a new leadership role. After the ceremony, a woman handed me a note which she said was an impression God had given her to share with me.

The note simply read, “Openness.” I got the point.

We must be humble and “open” to arrive at the truth about people and situations. Through my Argentinian friend and then my note passer, I learned a good lesson in Panama: God is just–he is fair. He does not go to extremes to label people or fail to note their positive qualities. I need to do the same. In our polarized world, it is important to not be narrow in sizing up people and situations. We need to see and applaud the good and speak up against the bad.

This may be one reason why Bill O’Reilly is the most trusted man on television.. He works very hard at collecting facts and attempting to be fair with political figures of all stripes. I don’t always agree with him, but his intentional desire to treat different points of view fairly is a good example.

His network–Fox News–tries to live up to the same standard with its motto: “Fair and balanced.” Maybe that’s why it is the most watched network in America today.

How about you? Are you fair when it comes to speaking about political leaders? Do you have the humility to lift up their strengths while criticizing their weaknesses? Or is it easy to whitewash everything because of bias or lack of facts?

On my trip to Panama I read a book (which shall be the subject of a future column) that shares a similar idea.

Dr. Mary Neal says, “Interpreting something that happens as being inherently “good” or “bad” is entirely a matter of perspective. Do “bad things happen to good people?” I’m not sure. Jesus was certainly a very “good” man. His crucifixion would certainly be interpreted by many as a “bad” thing. His disciples were devastated, yet the Old Testament prophecies would not have been fulfilled and a new covenant with God would not exist if Jesus had not been crucified.”

“From this perspective, it is difficult to declare that the crucifixion of Jesus was a “bad” thing. In fact, it is the very heart of the “good news” that Christians celebrate.”

I was quick to label Jimmy Carter as “bad.” But in Latin America, he is viewed as very “good.”

To be fair and just, there must be humility, honesty, and the pursuit of truth in our hearts to give credit where credit is due and warning where it is also necessary.

Gracias, mi amigo. I commit to greater fairness in all that I say and do.

 

 

 

 

Keith Green and Leonard Ravenhill: Revival Odd Couple

I spent a week recently in east Texas training a new batch of YWAM missionaries. One  evening, an Asian friend gave me a short tour of the area which I hadn’t visited in almost thirty years. We traveled from YWAM’s largest training center at Twin Oaks Ranch (built by David Wilkerson in the 70s) to the sprawling acreage housing Mercy Ships (once the Agape Force) and then over to the campus of Teen Mania (which was originally Last Days Ministries).

Some great ministries once were or are now located here. Their outreach touches millions of lives all over the world.

Our final stop was Garden Valley Baptist Church located between these para-church giants. Behind the church was a small cemetery I had asked to visit to seek out the graves of two of my heroes.

Keith Green and Leonard Ravenhill. They’re both buried in the far corner of the graveyard–only about twenty feet from each other. They were great revivalists who impacted their world For Jesus.

Both in life and death, they were the Revival Odd Couple from whom we can learn much about how God’s uses diverse human beings for his purposes and glory.

Leonard Ravenhill

I had the privilege of meeting Brother Ravenhill in the 1980s when I first worked with the YWAM community in the area. He lived in a small home near Twin Oaks Ranch, and on a number of occasions I walked over to his place to pray with him.

He welcomed me into his study, we’d talk about God and spiritual awakenings, and then we would bow our heads and cry out to God to bring revival to this generation. Leonard Ravenhill prayed with passion and clarity–just like he preached and wrote.

As a young man, I was greatly impacted by his intellect, understanding of history and his burden for the Church to wake up and get on fire for God. One of his famous books, Why Revival Tarries, had made a great impact on my life during my early years in Youth With A Mission.

Leonard was an Englishman with a beautiful accent!–born in 1907 in Leeds in Yorkshire, England, As a young man, he sat under the ministry of the legendary Samuel Chadwick and became a student of church history, with a particular interest in Christian revival. His evangelistic meetings during World War II drew large crowds in the British Isles.

In 1939, he married an Irish nurse, named Martha and in 1950, he and his family moved from Great Britain to the United States. In the 1960s they traveled around America holding tent revivals and evangelistic meetings.

In the 1980s, the Ravenhills moved to east Texas where he spent the last years of his life. He regularly taught classes at Last Days Ministries where he met and mentored Keith Green. He also spent time teaching at Bethany College of Missions in Minnesota.

Among others influenced by Leonard Ravenhill’s life and message were Ravi Zacharias, Tommy Tenny, Steve Hill, Charles Stanley, Bill Gothard and David Wilkerson.

And, of course, me–and many other young people looking for spiritual role models.

One of Leonard Ravenhill’s closest pastoral associate was Dr. A.W. Tozer who said this about his fervent friend: 

“To such men as this, the church owes a debt too heavy to pay. The curious thing is that she seldom tries to pay him while he lives. Rather, the next generation builds his sepulchre and writes his biography – as if instinctively and awkwardly to discharge an obligation the previous generation to a large extent ignored.”

Leonard lived a long and full life committed to spiritual revival. He died in November 1994, at the age of 87.

Keith Green

I also met Keith Green around 1980 when Winkie Pratney drove me over to the newly developing Last Days community. Keith gave me a tour of the property and especially of the warehouse where he was beginning to print and distribute the soon-to-be-famous LDM tracts.

During our visit, Keith lifted Winkie up high in the air on one of the fork lifts and then nearly scared him to death while buzzing him around the warehouse while Winkie held on for dear life! Keith was spontaneous and a prankster–and also committed to revival.

But it was not always that way.

Keith took to music at a young age, playing guitar at five, and the piano at seven.  His talents were noted by the LA Times in 1962 when he took to the stage in Arthur Laurent’s “The Time of the Cuckoo” in Chatsworth, California. A rising star was being born.

At 10 years old, young Keith went on to play the role of “Kurt von Trapp” in a local community theater production of “The Sound of Music.” By the time he was ten, he had already written forty original songs and signed a music contract with Decca Records with his father, Harvey, as his manager.

The first song he released on disc was A Go-Go Getter in May 1965. Upon publication of this song, Keith became the youngest person ever to sign with the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers and Decca Records planned to make Green a teen idol.

By the time Keith was twelve, he had written ten more songs, and TIME again ran a short piece about him in an article about aspiring young rock-‘n’-roll singers, referring to him as Decca Records’ “pre-pubescent dreamboat”. But instead of rising to secular stardom, Donny Osmond stole the hearts of the new teenage class and Keith’s life took a hard turn–one part bad and the other, eternally good.

Keith was born into a combination Jewish/Christian Science home which was an odd mixture that left him open minded but deeply unsatisfied. He began doing drugs and became interested in eastern mysticism and “free love.” But a “bad trip,” sent him fleeing the drug scene and in his pursuit of the truth, he found Jesus as his Savior along with another young musician named Melody who became his wife and companion.

Keith later admitted that he’d been “lost in a fantasy until God’s love broke through.” In 1975, Keith and Melody began taking people who needed help into their small home in LA which would later be dubbed “The Greenhouse”—a place where people grew in their faith. Much to the consternation of neighbors, some 75 people lived in the Green’s homes and traipsed down the suburban streets—including recovering drug addicts and prostitutes, bikers, the homeless.

In 1976 they incorporated their work as Last Days Ministries, and in 1979 purchased forty acres near Garden Valley, Texas to grow their expanding ministry which included Keith’s albums and concerts, his prophetic preaching on revival, holiness, and commitment to Christ and an exploding tract ministry.

In the late 70s, Keith Green was America’s number one prophetic voice to the Jesus Revolution. By May 1982, Last days had shipped out more than 200,000 of his prophetic albums – 61,000 for free–out of that warehouse I visited in east Texas.

But on July 28, 1982, Keith and eleven other people, including two of his young children were killed when Last Day’s small Cessna aircraft crashed soon after take-off due to over-loading. Like many others,  I heard the news with grief and shock–and mourned the life of a young prophet whose ministry seemed to be just beginning.

Keith Green was dead at the age of 28.

Only a few months before his passing, Keith had come to know a number of YWAM leaders who had encouraged him to use his influence to call others into missions. Keith seemed to be moving in that direction when his life was suddenly cut short.

Interestingly and redemptively, that vision came to pass after his death through a series of Keith Green Memorial Concerts where his wife Melody and other workers, teaming with YWAMers from all over America, used Keith’s message and notoriety to call thousands of young people to go into all the world.

Shirley and I got to know Melody and her two remaining children in 1986 when we attended a Leadership Training School together for three months in Kona, Hawaii. Our children were of similar age, and much time was spent playing together while Shirley and I and Melody talked about life, Jesus, and Keith.

It was a privilege to know Leonard Ravenhill and Keith Green. As i stood by their graves, my friend and I thanked God for their lives and I meditated how God can use such diverse people for his glory:

  • Leonard was a proper Englishman; Keith was a hippie from Southern Cal.
  • Leonard lived a long life of service; Keith was like a shooting star that emerged suddenly then faded into the sky.
  • Leonard was traditional, cautious, conservative and Old School; Keith was brash, reckless, fearless and a dreamer.
  • Leonard was a preacher; Keith was a musician.

But both of them had a heart for God and for revival in the American nation. Despite their differences, they became close friends, a mentor and a mentee–as different as oil and water–but united by the Holy Spirit in the power of Christ’s call.

Now their bodies lie about twenty feet from one another. But their spirits soar in heaven where both now behold their Lord and Master.

They certainly are the Revival Odd Couple.

Only an awesome and mighty God can bring together and use men such as these.

 

How Liberalism Became Our State Religion

Every so often I run across a piece that resonates deeply and causes me to exclaim: “Wow–that’s exactly what I’ve been thinking and I wish I’d written it first!.”

This is a big week in the cultural history of the United States as the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments that could alter the role of marriage in our nation. I have written much on this subject and am joining many in prayer during this fateful week.

Nobody has said it better as to WHY this is happening than Dr. Benjamin Wiker in the article below. I agree with him that “radical monogamy” is one of God’s primary ways for limiting sin and the destruction of family.

May the Supremes’ eyes be opened to the truth.

Dr. Benjamin Wiker, Senior Fellow of the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology, holds a Ph.D. in Theological Ethics from Vanderbilt University, and has taught at Marquette University, St. Mary’s University, Thomas Aquinas College (CA), and Franciscan University. He lives with his wife and seven children in rural Ohio.

Dr. Wiker is the author of several books including, Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God (co-authored with Scott Hahn, Emmaus, 2008), Ten Books that Screwed Up the World (Regnery, 2008), A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature (co-authored with Jonathan Witt, InterVarsity, 2006), Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists (InterVarsity, 2002), The Mystery of the Periodic Table (Bethlehem Books, 2003), and Architects of the Culture of Death (co-authored with Donald DeMarco, Ignatius, 2004).

How Liberalism Became Our State Religion

By Benjamin Wiker, Ph.D

As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against gay marriage we might stand back from the whole judicial fracas and ask ourselves a larger and hopefully more startling question: “What is the government doing deciding what marriage is?”

This is really two questions in one. First, how did it come to be that we, as a culture, are in a position where something seemingly so natural, something that existed long before any governments were around, is now up for debate? Second, why is it that we would look to a branch of the government to settle that debate?

The answer to the first question is rather complex. For centuries (not just decades) liberalism has been picking away at the Christian foundations of Western culture. Liberalism is, in essence, a secular and secularizing movement; it is historically defined by its opposition to Christianity. Wherever secular liberalism spreads, Christianity recedes. Look at Europe.

Christianity defined marriage by what we might call radical monogamy: a life-long, entirely exclusive union of one man and one woman. No sex before marriage. No concubines. No polygamy. No divorce (except for infidelity). No homosexuality. No fiddling with little boys.

The pagan Roman culture into which Christianity was born smiled on sex wherever, whenever, and with whomever it occurred. Marriage was an important social institution in Rome, but it was not defined by radical monogamy. Concubines? No problem. Sex with your male and female slaves? No big deal. Divorce? Happens all the time. Got a favorite boy? Don’t we all. Like pornography? We’ll paint the walls of your villa next week.

Homosexuality was as widespread in Rome as it was in Greece, and, yes, in Rome there was gay marriage. Right at the top of society. The emperor Nero married one Pythagoras, and we have reports of other such unions.

That was the marital, sexual status quo of the society into which Christianity was born. As Rome fell, and Christianity rose, the Christian understanding of sexuality and marriage transformed the Roman Empire—proto-Europe, we might call it. With that transformation the radical monogamy of Christianity became the social, moral, legal standard, so normal that it was regarded as natural.

It is only because Christianity won out over pagan Rome that we are having arguments about marriage today. If Christians had been summarily extinguished by imperial Rome, radical monogamy would have disappeared with it, along with opposition to homosexuality.

Christianity’s radical monogamy is indeed based in nature, in the obvious complementarity of the sexes, male and female. But admittedly it asks a lot of nature, pushing beyond mere convenience, and upwards to perfection. In a very real way, Christianity asks more of marriage than mere mortals—in all our weakness—have the power to give. But that is, in fact, a central doctrine of Christianity: we are fallen and need God’s grace to do what is truly good, truly right.

Modern liberalism, arriving on the scene, said “no” to Christianity. “No” in the secular sense of denying the existence of God, and hence of the whole social, moral, legal apparatus of Christianity. But also “no” in the allegedly humanitarian sense—Christianity asks too much; it sets the bar for sexuality and marriage too high.

And so liberalism said, “Radical monogamy is too much to ask. Loosen up the strings on sexuality and marriage.”

The sexual revolution is the loosening up of strings—so loose, in fact, that we have returned pretty much to the situation of ancient pagan Rome.

So, that’s the answer to the first question. We are debating what marriage is, and considering instituting gay marriage, because history has run a great arc. De-Christianization has led us right back to pagan Rome, to the good old pre-Christian days when sexuality was free to run wherever the passions led it. The re-affirmation of homosexual marriage just completes the historical arc.

Now for the second question. Why are we looking to one branch of government to settle the issue of what marriage is?

Historically, liberalism is a top-down revolution. It uses the power of the government to reform society—through control of public education, through the courts, through executive orders, through bureaucratic agencies. All organs of the state.

Liberals look to the state, in the way that Christianity looks to the church—as the institution responsible for evangelizing society. When persuasion doesn’t work (through public education or media propaganda), they resort to the blunt use of judicial fiat.

That’s why liberals want the Supreme Court to redefine marriage in Hollingsworth v. Perry.

But that makes it, at the same time, an issue of church and state—the secular state saying to the Christian church, a very imperial “We say that marriage is this. You will affirm gay marriage. You will bend the knee before the state.”

And that just means, “Christians, you will bend the knee before liberalism.”

 

Author and speaker Benjamin Wiker, Ph.D. has published eleven books, his newest being Worshipping the State: How Liberalism Became Our State Religion. His website is www.benjaminwiker.com