Is Jimmy Carter Promoting an American Theocracy?

New York Times reporter David Kirkpatrick reports that Jimmy Carter made the following statement at Bill Hybels' leadership conference in the summer of 2007:

“I think that a superpower ought to be the exemplification of a commitment to peace ... I would like for anyone in the world that’s threatened with conflict to say to themselves immediately: ‘Why don’t we go to Washington? They believe in peace and they will help us get peace.’ This is just a simple but important extrapolation from what a human being ought to do, and what a human being ought to do is what Jesus Christ did, who was a champion of peace.”

Really? Is Carter actually suggesting that the American state should reflect the values of Jesus Christ? This is the clear implication of his statement. According to Carter, the state should do what good human beings do and good human beings will exemplify the values of Jesus.

If asked for proof that Jesus was a champion of peace, I imagine that Mr. Carter might quote from the Sermon on the Mount. "Blessed are the peacemakers," Jesus said, "for they shall be called the sons of God" (Matthew 5:9). Rather than demanding an "eye for an eye", Jesus requires us to "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:38-39). "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you .... " (Luke 6:27) is another well-known command of the Prince of Peace and it tells us to seek reconciliation rather than retaliation.

Fair enough. Jesus is in favor of peace.

Interestingly, in that same famous sermon, Jesus also speaks about many other moral issues - issues such as divorce and adultery. He condemns both. Does Carter think that the American government should incorporate Jesus' views on divorce and adultery into its public policy? If not, why not? After all, those values are right there in that same Sermon on the Mount that Carter would rely on for proof that Jesus is a promoter of peace. If the American government should exemplify Jesus' views on peace, why should it not also adopt his views on marriage and illicit sex?

Imagine what would happen if James Dobson appeared at the National Association of Evangelicals' national meeting and said:

“I think that a superpower ought to be the exemplification of a commitment to marriage ... I would like for anyone in the world that’s threatened with divorce to say to themselves immediately: ‘Why don’t we go to Washington? They believe in marriage and they will help us preserve our marriage.’ This is just a simple but important extrapolation from what a human being ought to do, and what a human being ought to do is what Jesus Christ did, who was a champion of marriage.”

I can easily imagine that Jimmy Carter would be critical of such a view. He has repeatedly been critical of politically conservative Christians and their attempts to pursue moral agendas that they think Jesus cares about.

But regardless of Carter's reaction, the usual voices on the political left would undoubtedly be outraged by such statements coming from Dobson. They'd be at DEFCON1 in the blink of an eye. From their bunkers, they'd issue dire warnings about the dangers of religious fundamentalists who want to take over this country and turn it into a Christian theocracy. They'd wag their fingers and tells us that you can't legislate morality.

Yet this same reaction does not occur to them when Carter suggests that the federal government should be promoting peace in the world because this is what Jesus wants.

Why?

I think it's pretty simple. They believe, in the face of all the evidence from world history to the contrary, that any dispute can be and should be peacefully resolved by negotiation and compromise but they do not believe in the ideal of marriage to one partner for life. They are happy to see people use Jesus to help them with causes in which they believe and they are happy to demand that Jesus be ignored in the public arena when his values conflict with their own.

Of course, this same phenomenon occurs on the political right. All political perspectives pick and choose the moral issues about which they choose to get exercised. Selective moral outrage is a common human failing.

All of these considerations bring my basic question about the interplay of Christian faith and politics into focus: Is there a principled basis for deciding which of my Christian values, if any, should be reflected in the governance of a secular state?

I'm beginning to make some progress on this question and I'm happy to get any thoughts you might have on this matter.

Author's Clarification on 12/31/2007: Nothing in the discussion above was meant to be judgmental towards those who might have stumbled in the areas of divorce or adultery. While Jesus condemns both practices, he was compassionate and merciful to those he met who had failed in these matters.