Personality Profile

On 20 January 1981, Jimmy Carter ceased to be president of the USA. Buried in a landslide victory for Ronald Reagan, he faced a decision which other men have had to do, but Carter did it at least differently, and probably better, than many of his contemporaries. He is the most respected “former President” in America presently.

Theodore Roosevelt hunted for a year in East Africa where he nearsightedly “fired off an astonishing amount of ammunition at every species in God’s creation,” as Lance Morrow says in “The Lives of the Saint” TIME 18 May 1998, p. 56.) Lyndon Johnson retired to his Texas ranch “to drink and smoke and grow his hair long like a hippie and wait to die.” Richard Nixon, after brooding by the Pacific, “went back East to reinvent himself as elder statesman.”

Jimmy Carter, who even proof-read his aides’ memos to him and oversaw use of the White House tennis courts, ended up “widely scorned as the micromanager of malaise held hostage by the Ayatullah,” and was trounced out of office.

But Lance Morrow does not credit Carter with Carter’s obvious sincerity. Morrow says Carter “appointed himself to a new historical position--which he made up as he went along--as America’s anti-President: a psalm-singing global circuit rider and moral interventionist,” but Carter was simply trying to do good and be a good Christian.

Lance Morrow calls it “insufferable self-absorption and self-righteousness in the service of admirably selfless causes,” but that, consciously or not, makes Morrow the judge of Carter’s inner character, as well as of the worth of Carter’s deeds. Morrow comes off more self-righteous than Carter ever does in that perspective.

Carter has worked on homes for Habitat for Humanity. He has crusaded against guinea worm and river blindness diseases. He has used his “commanding moral authority” (strange in someone allegedly self-absorbed and self-righteous) to negotiate disputes, monitor elections, and coax transitions to democracy.

Morrow’s problem is his own attitude to Carter’s Christianity--Morrow calls Carter’s authenticity “maddening.” Why do his Christian commitment and moral clarity madden Morrow? Because Morrow has none? Yes, Carter is occasionally nasty, as he showed in the debates with Reagan, but at least he stands by his beliefs, and has some.

Carter’s stubborness was his worst characteristic, and at its worst just before the Gulf War. As historian Douglas Brinkley says in The Unfinished Presidency, “Carter was prepared to do just about anything to prevent a Middle East war, even if it meant working against his own government.” He came close to treason, writing heads of state of the U.N. Security Council, and later to Arab heads of state, pleading with them to abandon President Bush’s carefully coordinated coalition. Later, Carter admitted his tactics were”not appropriate.” Morrow says Carter never apologized. Maybe Carter called that an apology.

Roger Forster, quoted in the news section of this issue, interviewed in Jesus Life magazine, says that in the U.K. one half of the practicing church is evangelical/charismatic, but has little impact on British society, which keeps declining morally, ethically, and in quality of life. Revival in the sense of greater spiritual hunger and greater drop in teen crime is present, but revival in the sense of a spiritually awakened society has not yet happened. It has happened before, so it can again. As he says, "Making disciples is the big thing," or churches remain unaffected and corrupt. A critical mass of genuine Christians on the ground affect the society around them, and Jeremiah and Jonah tell us that, if the nation repents, God relents. Of course, society will polarize, as Jesus prophesied, because some people will choose to follow Jesus, and others to reject. Then evil will threaten the church more.

He says Christian millionaires who don't do anything to spread the gospel are "disastrously wrong....They may have all sorts of phenomena taking place in their churches, but what difference does it make to their lifestyle and value? I'd like to see those millions poured into world evangelization....That's what the Biblical Year of Jubilee is all about--the redistribution of wealth." He reminds people that Jesus said, "Deny yourself." On this subject, he adds, "I don't like "prosperity doctrine," but let's have their faith! Let's see people healed, delivered."

In response to appeals like Noel Stanton's to reject middle class, Roger responds that we need to reach all of society. He's right. Just as Jesus Army, for example, appeals to people to bring all their gifts, Roger is doing the same thing. For example, he points out that middle-class training provides some skills necessary to lead and manage people. The people who plant churches are highly motivated--if they went into business, they could make a great deal of money. That sort of person will not look downbeat by life, no matter who he is.

On the other hand, some people who have spent their lives on dole given by the government or by charitable institutions, and who can scarcely read and write, simply can't lead immediately. If they're Spirit-filled, they can minister and people can be healed, but to manage a group of people adequately, they must change their lifestyle.

He has a sense of mission. He notes that the Bible says that some from every tongue will be in Heaven. Out of the 12,000 linguistic groups on earth, only 500 had been reached with the gospel by the year 1900. By 1996, the number was10,000. Progress is being made, and he did missionary work in Hong Kong, praying in tongues for two hours over drug addicts.

He defends the continuing of Bible weeks and other events where people share life together more deeply than they can at work and at home during the daily grind, and where they reinforce each other's faith and encourage each other to reach out for more of God. They share life--body, soul and spirit--and these events give exposure to Christianity, as does March for Jesus.

He says Christians need to keep cells, since there we train people. The cells are both evangelistic and pastoral. He'd like all the pastoring to be done in cells, but sometimes cell leaders have huge problems and need someone else to help him find his way through it. "We don't want immature people mucking up other people's lives."

He speaks disparagingly of Peter Wagner, who "wants to introduce apostles here as though nobody's ever thought about them before. But everybody's know for centuries that the church will never rise to the full stature of Christ unless you have apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers."

Yet he does not think Christianity is producing apostles. He thinks that some people "will be able to continue with some degree of apostolic authority. If you pioneer something, you get lots of Number Twos around to keep it going but it's another thing to hand it over to someone." Personally, I think the situation's brighter than he seems to think it is. I think there are qualified people who can take up responsibility. Perhaps it's normal for older, more developed and experienced minister to wonder if the young men can handle it. Paul, when handing the work over to Timothy, still urges Timothy to stir up the gift within him. However, eventually sickness or death removes senior ministers, and we find out that the successor is capable and a success. After Moses died, God and the people told Joshua to "be strong and of a good courage," and he was. He had already proven both his military ability and devotional dedication, and he led militarily and administratively with skill and spirit.

When he asked how to train a pioneering apostle, Noel Stanton suggested that having them start in cell work and street evangelism is how he does it in his organization. Roger replied, "All you can do is to ask that God will train in His own way and give that sense of calling. But, it's got to be done, otherwise all our work will be wasted." True, training's essential, but, as above, we can do more than just give up. We can also follow the models in the Bible for leadership. Joshua and Elisha were personal assistants before succeeding to the boss's place. Mathias was a witness for a long time before taking the vacancy caused by Judas' departure. The heroes Joshua and Saul became leaders by taking action when it was needed. Same with David and, for that matter, the prophets. Paul and Timothy both started as teachers before expanding to leadership, and both started under someone else's leadership in a ministerial team before becoming the leader themselves. We can follow this model now, and the results work well. If new leaders seem timid at first--natural to someone succeeding a great man--the predecessor and the membership can encourage them, and their assurance can grow, as it usually does when successors realize that, since the predecessor is gone, successors must now do the work.

Roger acknowledges this in his own experience by saying, "We've shoved people out into distant parts, and they've been on their own taking initiatives and doing apostolic work in the same way as we did in the beginning."

Concerning the importance of doctrine and theology, he says, "First, theology doesn't matter in the sense that God blesses where there are sincere hearts and people want to follow Jesus sacrificially. But just as the structures of the church can almost take the place of God Himself, so could our theology....But secondly, our theology does matter from the point of view of how long revival and church planting is going to continue. The Spirit of God may fall upon us no matter what our particular theology is. But when it comes to communicating that revival to others, if you promote it with the wrong propositions, the day will come when it gets stuck. And there are lots of people who will never come in unless our theology changes, because they see it, rightly so, as illogical and irrational." (So he disagrees with Anne Wilkenson Hayes, who in the previous article in this issue of Glory said people don't care whether or not theology makes sense. I think Anne Wilkenson Hayes probably speaks more truly of the man on the street who knows little or nothing of the Bible and cares about being cared for more than for doctrinal structures, but that Roger Forster is on target regarding people, in or out of the church, who know their Bible better and seek an intellectually clarifying faith.)

His theology is not fluff. When someone says, "it's all within the sovereignty of Almighty God," he answers, "Not quite! I don't think God can always do as He pleases any more than I can. It's all to do with man's free will as well." Yet, his theological statement is incomplete, for, to demand man's free will at the expense of God's is absurd. We get our free will because we're made in God's image. Our free will is necessarily limited because we are limited creatures, while God, being unlimited, has unlimited free will. The fact that He chooses not to exercise His power is in itself a choice of His, and rather indicates His free will than an absence of it.

Roger wants people to have a life-changing faith. He points out that Paul told the Corinthians, "You were washed and sanctified, get back in line," and that the early Methodists changed their lifestyle radically. "They used the cell system--you had to confess your sins every week. If you didn't match up, you were thrown out!"

He favors evangelical unity, "but you must work at your own distinctives as well as working at being one with others," partly because he's "not happy with prosperity doctrine or self-promotion or competition among ministries." However, if he does not favor these other doctrines or self-promoters, he will almost necessarily, as he works at his own distinctives, compete at least partly between his own ministry and those he disfavors, and hence be less "at one with" at least some other ministries, organizations and denominations.

He favors re-emphasis on Spirit baptism. "I'm not very happy that people collapse under the Spirit and don't speak in tongues. I'd much rather they spoke in tongues and didn't collapse!" He is right, and his remarks timely.

And he does believe in divine healing. God has used him in this respect.
Back to Top