What do an ex-President of the United States, and a Democrat at that, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have in common? A strong sense that America has lost its way in its search for moral certitude. But while the sense is the same, the prescriptions are different, and form the basis for this amazingly insightful book.

Carter approaches his subject from what he suggests is a profoundly Christian perspective. His standing as a "born-again Christian," raised in the Southern Baptist denomination, is well known and has been widely discussed. What was less obvious during his administration was his reluctance to wear his religion on his sleeve, and impose an overtly-fundamentalistic approach to public policy.

Carter opens his book with a somewhat regretful essay on the divisive nature of some fundamentalists today. He reflects on how the religion in which he was raised is markedly different from the that practiced by some in Southern Baptist faith today. He believes that his upbringing taught him inclusiveness, tolerance and humility, values he thinks are not evident today in some religious circles.

He argues against religious fundamentalism in all its forms, including the Islamic brand. And he urges Christian religions to find some way to work together despite their doctrinal differences.

His discussion of the battles between science and religion reflect his own deeply personal belief that they can co-exist:

I have always understood that we didn't need scientific proof of the existence or character of God. In fact, whenever there was adequate physical evidence to prove any theory or proposition, then we didn't need faith as a basis for our belief. Even for those without specific religious convictions, the inner feeling of what was right and wrong and the awe-inspiring beauty of starlit sky or sunset, the emergence of the butterfly from a chrysalis, the industry of an ant, or the sprouting of a seed were adequate proofs of God's hand in our lives and in creation.

It seems obvious to me that, in its totality, the Bible presented God's spiritual message, but that the ancient authors of the Holy Scriptures were not experts in geology, biology, or cosmology, and were not blessed with the use of electronic microscopes, carbon-dating techniques, or the Hubble telescope. I've never been bothered by verses in the Bible stating that the earth is flat or has four corners, that stars can follow the earth like figs from a tree, or that the world was created in six calendar days as we know them. (p. 48)

I'm sure such thoughts are not pleasing to some of his fellow Baptists, but I think he makes a good case for reading the Bible with discernment and common sense. Mormons confront this issue all the time: teachings, for example, about Kolob, and questions about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, challenge the reader to define the boundaries of one's beliefs.

Carter is very pointed in his criticism of efforts to bring church and state together, and is not afraid to name names:

There is obviously a widespread, carefully planned, and unapologetic crusade under way from both sides to merge fundamentalist Christians with the right wing of the Republican Party. Although considered to be desirable by some Americans, this melding of church and state is of deep concern to those who have always relished their separation as one of our moral values. (p. 64)

That last sentence underlines a common theme in this book -- the idea of "moral values" isn't restricted to the areas of sexuality and individual morality. It extends into the political, scientific and social spheres in ways that have far more impact on our society than whether a person is gay or whether folks decide to marry. These are challenging times, and it will require a wider view of morality to cope with these challenges.

I should say that he doesn't avoid the problems of homosexuality and abortion. His belief is quite conservative on these issues. But he believes that government should not be the arbiter of conflicts arising from these issues, and that the church should play a wider role in dealing with areas of sexuality and behavior.

He surely tweaks a few noses in his passionate pleas for the equality of women and the abolition of the death penalty. Neither seems to be in the political programs of the Christian fundamentalists, but he believes that both are supportable from a biblical point of view, as do I.

It is no surprise that he takes aim against neoconservatism and fundamentalism in American foreign policy. But he will not take a back seat to anyone when it comes to peacefully, and Constitutionally, protecting the American homeland. He sees the issue of the still-existing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction as a real problem:

It should be remembered that the enormous nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia still exist, and little bilateral effort has been made to reduce these unnecessary weapons, with mandatory verification of such agreements and the dismantling and disposal of decommissioned weapons. With massive arsenals still on hair-trigger alert, a global holocaust is just as possible now, through mistakes or misjudgments, as it was during the depths of the Cold War. (p. 141)

In one very passionate chapter, "Worshiping the Price of Peace, or Preemptive War?", Carter makes very clear his views on the current conflict in Iraq, and presents the following interesting dichotomies:

Is it better to cherish our historic role as the great champion of human rights, or to abandon our high domestic and international standards in response to threats? Is it better to set a firm example of reducing reliance on nuclear weapons and their further proliferation, or to insist on our right (and that of others) to retain our arsenals, expand theirs, and therefore abrogate or derogate control agreements negotiated for many decades? Are we best served by espousing peace as a national priority unless our security is directly threatened, or by proclaiming an unabridged right to attack other nations unilaterally to change an unsavory regime or for other purposes? Is a declaration of "You are either with us or against us" superior to forming alliances based on a clear comprehension of mutual interests? When there are serious differences with other nations, is it best to permit direct negotiations to resolve the problems, or to brand those who differ as international pariahs -- and to refuse to permit such discussions? (p. 162-3)

There is an almost-biblical tone to Carter's questions. They recall Joshua's challenge to Israel:

Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. (Joshua 24:14-15)

Likewise, 2 Nephi 2 contains strong statements about choosing between life and death, between bondage and liberty.

In the end, Our Endangered Values is all about making choices, on both individual and governmental levels. I do not doubt that the Bush presidency, and the dominance of the neoconservative mindset in our foreign policy, has caused Mr. Carter to bristle Neither do I doubt that there are sincere voices on all sides of the debate.

And there is no question that Carter remains a somewhat divisive character in our nation. Many feel he is a good, honest and deeply Christian man. I am among them. On the other hand, George Will recently called Carter "an even worse ex-president than he was a president." I disagree. Some have criticized him for his comments about the current president, a practice normally eschewed by former presidents. Others applaud him for speaking out when his conscience so directs.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not been silent in the areas of morality and values. The Proclamation on the Family is a widely-read and studied broadside reflecting the views of the First Presidency; the Church's stand on gay marriage may be inferred from this document. The Church likewise has a rich history of involvement in the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment.

Mr Carter presents his case fluidly and clearly. His prose is terse and snappy, with hardly a wasted word. Some consider him an incompetent dreamer; others a clear voice for a rational, sustainable future. However one comes down on this argument, thinkers of every stripe should consider Carter's views, give them a fair hearing, and then, indeed, make a choice. This is our right, this is our duty.

-----------------------------------

Jeff Needle
March 10, 2006