I have been reading the debates. Cliff has been a regular commentator. The Daily Bailout has been active. AKMA plans on chiming in. It is becoming more and more clear to me that we Baptists are on very dangerous ground.
Yes, absolutely, the separation of church and state and how Baptist churches live into that is at play. From some posts I have read, the pastor was pushing that boundary a great deal. Though I may disagree and believe that the pulpit is not the place for that kind of politicing, no one has a right or even a vague responsibility to dictate to a Baptist congregation (polity matters here) what should be done. It is absurd. The congregation is broken. The pastor has been forced to resign. They have most likely been divided for years over this and many other issues. The pastor did not cause this schism all on his own. He may have hurried it along, but he alone is not responsible. To claim so would be irresponsible and disrespectful and, possibly, more an expression of our own anger and ignorance than anything else. It is a sad shame.
And now, perhaps the worst sin of all, the IRS is being asked to investigate. Try to follow me here. Does this sound familiar? The religious authorities have no way to punish this congregation for the words of their leader, so they turn to the government...the state...to enforce a law and to exact punishment. We are breaching the separation. We have become the Sanhedrin. We are crucifying this congregation and its pastor.
Melodrama? Perhaps. But the realities of this case cannot be ignored. I am a left-wing wacko. I admit it. Frankly, I love it. But this type of retribution is insane. It is contrary to scripture, to the faith and to the words of Jesus.
If this pastor is my political enemy, that matters not at all in light of our shared faith in the One Lord. He is my brother. I am to love him. Even if he is my enemy, I am called to love him. To employ the government to enact revenge is horrific. It is absurd. This is not love. It is hatred and it is sin.
Politics in pulpit spark church feud, members' ouster in North Carolina
Editor's note: This story replaces one issued May 6.
By Steve DeVane and Greg Warner
WAYNESVILLE, N.C. (ABP) -- Nine members of a Baptist church in North
Carolina say they were removed from membership because they disagree
with the pastor's political views.
Frank Lowe, one of the nine, said he had been a member of the 400-member East Waynesville Baptist Church for 43 years before he and the others were voted out May 3 for not agreeing with the conservative political views of pastor Chan Chandler.
Chandler denied that any members had been ejected for political reasons and called for a church meeting May 10 to clear up the
"misunderstanding."
Meanwhile, religious-liberty experts -- both conservative and liberal -- denounced the church's action and warned the congregation could lose its tax-exemption because of the pastor's political statements.
In an audiotape of a sermon preached by Chandler in October, one month prior to the November 2004 presidential election, the pastor said: "If you vote for John Kerry this year, you need to repent or resign. You have been holding back God's church way too long. And I know I may get in trouble for saying that, but just pour it on."
The pastor's apparent endorsement of a candidate for president prior to an election could violate federal laws that prevent churches and other charities organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code from officially endorsing political candidates or parties.
The political controversy at the Southern Baptist church reached a
climax during a meeting May 2. One person present asked if all church
members could come to the altar, pray together, forgive each other and get on with the Lord's business, according to Bill Rash, a church member for about 29 years. Chandler said if those who disagreed with him would repent, then they could get on with the Lord's work, and if they weren't going to repent they should leave, Rash said. Nine people reportedly left.
The pastor then called the church into a business session and the
congregation voted to terminate the memberships of those who left,
witnesses said. Rash said everyone voted for the measure except he and his wife, who didn't vote. The remaining members agreed that if another church asked to transfer the membership of any of those who left, the congregation would reply they left in bad standing, said Rash, who said he stayed through the meeting but has since decided to leave the church.
Janet Webb, a church member who also was at the meeting, declined to say what happened but said Chandler is "a man of God who only preaches against sin and to win people to Jesus Christ."
Chandler could not be reached for comment but told a TV reporter "the
actions were not politically motivated."
News of the church ouster was reported on CNN and other national and
local media.
The next Sunday, May 8, the four men and five women who were voted out went to East Waynesville Baptist to worship, accompanied by their
lawyer, dozens of supporters and media.
After the service, the pastor issued a prepared statement through his
attorney. "This church fellowships openly with all who embrace the
authority and application of the Bible regardless of political
affiliation, including current members who align themselves with both
major political parties, as well as those who affiliate with no
political party," the statement said in part. "No one has ever been
voted from the membership of this church due to an individual's support or lack of support for a political party or candidate. All matters of the church are internal in nature and are resolved accordingly."
Chandler, 33, announced another meeting of the church May 10, which he said would be open only to members but would include the nine reportedly dismissed.
Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious
Liberty Commission, defended the church's right to determine its
membership, but added "it would never -- never -- be appropriate or
acceptable for a local Baptist church to decide membership based upon
how a person votes."
Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for
Religious Liberty, said if Chandler's pulpit statement about John Kerry was made before the November election and did not indicate he was speaking only for himself, it would be a "pretty clear" violation of Internal Revenue Service rules against political endorsements by
churches.
Barry Lynn, executive director for Americans United for Separation of
Church and State, called for the IRS to investigate the Waynesville
church.
Ralph Neas, president of the People for the American Way Foundation,
called the report about the church's actions "terribly sad." "What have we come to when the doors of a church are closed to longtime members because of their political beliefs, when a pastor equates political support for the 'wrong' candidate with a sin before God?" he asked in a statement.
"Men and women of faith have every right to advocate for their political beliefs," Neas continued. "While churches, of course, can set their own membership standards, no one should punish people of faith for their political beliefs."
Meanwhile, a North Carolina congressman has introduced legislation that would lift restrictions on political speech in churches. The Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act, introduced by Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), is supported by many conservative Christian groups but opposed by supporters of church-state separation.
Walker of the Baptist Joint Committee said the Waynesville church
controversy "is why so many organizations are opposed to the Jones bill, because it would be so divisive -- our churches becoming 'red' churches and 'blue' churches and dividing along party lines," referring to the color designations used for political parties.
According to Lowe, one of three ousted deacons, he was voted out because Chandler "says my political views support abortion and homosexuality" "I am not -- positively not -- for either one," said Lowe, noting he usually votes Democratic while his wife votes
Republican.
Lowe said he and his wife have been invited to other churches since the May 2 meeting. He expects they'll start attending somewhere else but wouldn't rule out an effort to "retake" the church.
Chandler has been pastor of the church in western North Carolina for
about three years. The congregation is a member of the Southern Baptist Convention and Baptist State Convention of North Carolina.
Selma Morris, another church member, said she believes the vote to
remove the members isn't valid because the church bylaws weren't
followed. The bylaws say a called meeting should be announced on Sunday morning. The meeting Monday was announced at the Sunday evening service, she said.
The bylaws also say a called meeting should be held two weeks after the announcement, according to Morris. The meeting was held the next night.
Update: The pastor resigned.
Posted by: DawgDays at May 11, 2005 03:37 PMTripp,
This is the most egregious violation of IRS tax law in regard to churches of which I've ever heard. The IRS needed to be called.
I suspect that the pastor resigned because the church called a lawyer and discovered that he had indeed violated the law. The departure of the pastor probably protects the church's tax exempt status.
If the church really supported the pastor's position, they should have been willing to give up the exemption and stand on their principles.
Posted by: Bruce Prescott at May 11, 2005 08:32 PMBruce, thanks for your comment and for stopping by.
I think that you and I will have to disagree on that one. Did they break the law? I don't know. If they have, many others have as well, including some good old liberal congregations. Heck, the African-American tradition is to support one candidate as being more godly than another. Now, excommunication may be the difference, but you know as well as I do that in a court of law, we will not get the chance to define excommunication. It will be used to support the claim that any pressure is pressuer to put up or shut up or get out. That is the truth of peer pressure and the logistics of our freedom to associate as baptists with communities of like-minded believers.
You and I can wade in the nuances of this. And I agree with you that the pastor stepped over the line. So what. So did Jesus and he was killed for it. The SBC is already backing Chandler. Why would we want to encourage the use of the government to enforce an ecclesial problem? And, as it is an ecclesial issue, our ecclesiology suggests very strongly that you and I stay out of it. I do not know if you are a member of that congregation, but I am not. I do not get a vote. I get an opinion at best. The only appropriate way for we Baptists to fight this kind of misuse of the pulpit is to not do it ourselves.
There are injunctions against suing another Christian...this is tied to the cross and the misuse of the power of the state to kill God. Yes, God will rise. God does. But we will condemn ourselves in the process.
Boy, I am feeling all sorts of dramatic about this. But I simply do not understand how we congregationalists, we liberals, can play the same game that the high ecclesialists of the SBC are playing. By emplying the IRS we are playing their game. It does not matter if the law is broken. It does not matter that Baptist tradition has been bucked...and it has. Our response must reflect the gospel we preach.
In all things be gentle.
Posted by: Tripp at May 12, 2005 10:17 AMHi Tripp,
I actually posted the comments below on The Emmaus Theory in response to your comment there, but in reading the discussion here, find that they are probably appropriate here as well...
"I share your concerns with the idea of having the IRS brought into this situation. As it turned out, the situation took care of itself, albeit in a painful way for all involved. There was probably sufficient legal reason for the IRS to barge in, though, however uncomfortable that makes me feel. Chandler's resignation probably headed the IRS off at the pass and saved the church's tax exempt status. Still, the whole idea of IRS enforcement makes me uncomfortable (that's the libertarian and congregational streak in me).
"I don't have anything against people of strong political persuasion, even politicians themselves, speaking from the pulpits of churches. I don't even have any problem with them speaking political ideas. The line is crossed, in my opinion, when enforcement of political ideology is meted out in the form of threat or coercion. That's what happened at East Waynesville. I watched Bill Clinton speak at Riverside Church last year on TV. He spoke very politically, but he didn't cross that line. Although Riverside Church is liberal and Clinton was 'preaching to the choir,' still, if anyone had been in complete disagreement with the ideas he was promoting, they would not have felt like they were not welcome as members anymore. The other thing about Clinton at Riverside was that he spoke about ideas, he did not promote John Kerry by name or denounce George W. Bush by name.
"You are certainly correct about Harry Fosdick and Bill Coffin. They were both very political in their preaching. A conservative may have felt uncomfortable in either's church, but they would not have been compelled to leave on the basis of their disagreement with the preachers.
"I feel bad for the congregation at East Waynesville. Now, I guess it is really two congregations. I wonder, after some of the SBC leadership backed the tactics and political beliefs of Pastor Chandler, if the group that was kicked out (and the 40 who went with them) will continue to remain within the SBC? It would be difficult for me to do so if I knew that the denomination was supportive of those tactics and political ideologies. Maybe they should consider finding an American Baptist Church."
...I hope this makes sense in the context here :)
Peace,
Mike
Dr. Kear's comments clarify what pushed my hot button about this situation.
Yes, I understand the disctinction you press here about Baptist congregational polity-- as well as anyone outside the tradition can, I suppose. (That's what I get for hanging out with you!)
However, I also have a real emphatic commitment to the responsibility we as Christian pastors (of whatever stripe) accept when we climb into a pulpit. Part of that responsibility is not slamming the people we are called to love in the name of God. And that's pretty much everybody.
A preacher should certainly proclaim the gospel message, and delve freely into how it addresses the actions of our society, our culture, our government, and our world. Take on ideas, policies and ideologies, as clearly as the Word laid upon one's heart demands.
But to castigate individuals, or to devolve into name-calling, or to demand political alliance as proof of discipleship -- in other words, to treat disrespectfully those we are to love, in the name of God-- is unconscionable, and does a grave disservice to that very Gospel we are supposedly standing to represent.
Posted by: Jane Ellen at May 13, 2005 10:37 AM