quote:WAYNESVILLE, N.C. - A pastor of a small Baptist church led an effort to kick out church members because they didn't support President Bush, members said.
The nine members were voted out at a Monday meeting of the East Waynesville Baptist Church in this mountain town about 120 miles west of Charlotte. WLOS-TV in Asheville reported that 40 other members resigned in protest.
"It's all over politics," said Selma Morris, the church's treasurer. "We've never had a pastor like that before."
Pastor Chan Chandler had told the congregation before last year's presidential election that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic Sen. John Kerry should either leave the church or repent, said Lorene Sutton, who said she and her husband were voted out of the church this week.
"He's the kind of pastor who says do it my way or get out," she said. "He's real negative all the time."
Morris said some church members left after Chandler made his ultimatum in October.
Chandler didn't return a message left by The Associated Press at his home Friday, and several calls to the church went unanswered. He told WLOS that the actions were not politically motivated.
North Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Meek sharply criticized the pastor Friday, saying Chandler jeopardized his church's tax-free status by openly supporting a candidate for president.
"If these reports are true, this minister is not only acting extremely inappropriately by injecting partisan politics into a house of worship, but he is also potentially breaking the law," Meek said.
link Whoa, something is wrong with this picture. If my pastor would have tried something like this I would have left too, rather I voted Bush or not.
[ May 11, 2005, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged ]
Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If that story is accurate he really might have put the church's tax-exempt status in jepardy. It's okay to talk about where the church stands on issues and where candidates stand on issues and let people draw their own conclusions. It is NOT okay to endorse particular candidates. And to make support for a candidate a membership criteria . . . if somebody wanted to push this, I don't think he'd have a leg to stand on.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm guessing these people volunteered who they voted for? Not that I would want to stay at a church like that.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, that's 45 minutes from my home. Don't worry. This is normal, since everyone there is certifiably insane.
edit: I'm wondering if this is one of the Baptist churches that has managed to get the police to direct traffic for them on Sundays (no really. there are a number of them that do that there)...
[ May 07, 2005, 05:20 AM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is just pathetic. 50+ church members (9 voted out, 40 resigned in protest, some left in Oct. when the pastor issued the ultimatum) chivvied out of a small church, including the church treasurer, over presidential politics??
He's tearing apart his own church. My guess is the church won't exist much longer with him as pastor.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wowbagger, I think ex-communicating and kicking out of a local church are two different things. The people forced out are still Baptists, AFAIK.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
“Ex-communicated” is a word that’s used in lots of ways. As far as I know it has no “official” meaning in the Baptist church. There is no process of being ex-communicated. But it also has the literal sense of the word – out of communion – communion, in this case, meaning community. If the members are removed from the communion – the fellowship – the congregation – then, speaking very loosely, it isn’t totally inaccurate to say they’ve been ex-communicated. It is imprecise, however.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is why I am against tax-free status of Churches. It is reverse "hush money" from secularists. A church should have a right and even, if they so believe, a responsibility to get invoved in Politics event to the point of extreme partisanship. Tax-exemption is the equivalant of cencorship.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: A church should have a right and even, if they so believe, a responsibility to get invoved in Politics event to the point of extreme partisanship.
>_< Um. I think the majority of Americans think otherwise, and I'm glad. I personally think that any time the church becomes a vehicle for pushing a political agenda of a particular candidate or cause, whatever the teachings of the church, the possibility of corruption from both within and without the church becomes too large.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional, churches are not required to be tax exempt. They are required to be honest with the IRS about what their purpose is and what activities they plan to engage in. It’s when they claim a certain tax status and then engage in activities not allowed by that status that there’s a problem.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Realistically, I think the system works well overall. No-one is denying churches the right to take stands on issues. Taxing churches is an insidious form of control that could be used by opposing forces to curb freedom of religion. If we start electing a string of Baptist-identified/approved candidates, for example, would they not ultimately be pressured to move the laws (including tax laws) in a direction that would favor their religion and even their denomination over its rivals?
If you can tax other sects and religions out of existence, you might be thought to be doing God's work. Even if you'd be destroying America.
So, I think the idea of keeping the churches tax free is better.
A church can decide it is giving up too much in exchange for tax free status. It could simply pay the taxes and then not have to worry about the issue of political neutrality if it wanted to.
In practice, much of a political nature can heard from the pulpit without any problems arising. Only if it gets heavy-handed (like in this particular story) is there even the hint of a government response.
Churches have it pretty darn good in America, if you think about it.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone know of any Churches that are not tax-exempt from their own choice? I admit to a belief that Church and State should NOT be seperate, although decisions and laws should be made through proper political avenues.
quote: we start electing a string of Baptist-identified/approved candidates, for example, would they not ultimately be pressured to move the laws (including tax laws) in a direction that would favor their religion and even their denomination over its rivals?
I can see this happening with or without the tax-exemption clause. All they would have to do is change the existing tax laws. There is nothing in the Constitution that says Churches have a right to tax-exempt status.
posted
It gets weirder. The ousted members are hiring a lawyer:
"Morris said Saturday that some of the ousted members planned to meet with an attorney on Monday to discuss their options. "We're hoping he (the attorney) will make him leave so that the church members can come back," she said."
posted
Depends on if the Pastor is supposed to make such decisions. If the congregation hired the pastor, then they may have rights to try to oust him. It depends on how the church is organized. It will be a very thorny case.
Edit: If the Church is set up as a corporation, and if the Pastor has endangered the tax-exempt status, then there might be a very good case.
posted
While the actions of the pastor make him seem like a really horrible guy, I don't entirely understand why he should have to lose the tax-exempt status. It seems like he is making his claims based on religious issues that have political consequences.
I think that a pretty convincing case could be made that that the political position directly derived from the religious belief could be something the church should be able to endorse. For example, let's consider the religious belief that abortion is murder. When Kerry was running for president, several Catholic bishops told their congregations that they shouldn't vote for him because he supported abortion, and abortion was murder. They didn't excommunicate people who did, but at the same time, the Catholic church has many rules and regulations surrounding excommunication. This small Baptist church did not have these rules which makes the process much easier. If a member votes for a politician, and thus his political views and plans, who goes against church doctrine, then they are defying church doctrine. Excommunication doesn't seem incomprehensible.
I'm not advocating this. It is clearly a bad way to get more members and just generally seems slimy. But it seems within the jurisdiction of the church and I don't know why they should lose their tax-exempt status because of it.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
I don't support an "anything goes" attitude about the linking of church political activities and their tax exempt status. The problem I see is that if we don't have SOME limits (and the limit has traditionally been to bar churches from doing things like promoting particular candidates from the pulpit , forcibly making the congregation be of a single party affilition, etc.). This stuff is over that line. I don't know if the current Administration will take them on or whether this is more at the city/county level (i.e. property taxes). But it should be addressed.
See my earlier post for the probable consequences of NOT doing it. Really, failing to police the lines on this issue could just as much end up fostering a state religion as could actually getting the government involved in churches.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
adam's right, I know people who identify themselves as Democrat because "everybody in my family has always been a democrat" but the only democrats they vote for are the ones in local elections where the choice is between a conservative who calls himself a democrat and a conservative who calls himself a republican. In the national elections they vote republican.
This sounds ridiculous - I can understand the congregation wanting to get rid of this guy. I wish them luck in doing so.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: For that matter, being a Democrat doesn't necessarily mean one voted for Kerry, and being a Republican doesn't necessarily mean one voted for Bush. This doesn't sound like a party-line issue to me.
Thank you adam. The pastor was advising against a specific candidate who supported various issues such as abortion, that by voting for him, you also support.
Bob, where does the line stop? If the church is really nothing more than a rally for a political party, then that does seem wrong. But if they believe that one specific candidate stands for things that go directly against church doctrine, and that he plans to implement these things on their lives, saying a vote for him is a vote out of the church, doesn't seem that unrealistic. Besides, it's obviously an awful move for the church, so I don't think there's a lot of danger of this becoming widespread. Most churches have a sense of self-preservation.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
I don't know where the line is, let alone where it stops.
Frankly, I think if a candidate's positions are antithetical to those of a given church or congregation, the word will get out quite naturally without it being shouted from the pulpit, or made a condition for membership.
And, since it appears that most churches in America do draw the line at endorsing particular candidates "from the pulpit" I suspect that's probably at one line we can insist on.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I read yesterday that he tried to say that he didn't mean he was ousting them. The news cameras were thre, I guess.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: WAYNESVILLE, N.C. - A Baptist pastor accused of threatening to banish from his church anyone who didn't vote for President Bush has himself chosen to depart, leaving in his wake a divided community and a cultural chasm.
The Rev. Chan Chandler, 33, walked out of the church he had led for three years Tuesday night after delivering a brief statement of resignation. With him went many of the young congregants he had attracted to the modest brick church on the outskirts of this small mountain town in western North Carolina.
In leaving, Chandler did not apologize for the controversy that made him a national lightning rod — the claims by some church members that they were told to leave if they voted for Democratic nominee John Kerry.
"For me to remain now would only cause more hurt for me and my family," Chandler said. "I am resigning with gratitude in my heart for all of you, particularly those of you who love me and my family."
The dispute that engulfed East Waynesville Baptist Church in recent months would have sounded familiar to many an American congregation: Aging congregation brings in dynamic young preacher to turn things around. New pastor attracts young members who push for change in traditional ways of doing things. Battle ensues.
As Chandler and his wife drove out of the church's parking lot followed by a police escort, about 40 of his supporters walked out as well, with many saying they were resigning their memberships.
"I'm not going to serve with the ungodly," an angry Misty Turner declared.
But Maxine Osborne, 70, and among those who stayed behind, had a different view of what had transpired.
"A lot of these young people had not been in the church more than a year," she said. The Chandlers "brought in a lot of young people, but they also brainwashed them."
For the rest of the article. linkPosts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: He's tearing apart his own church. My guess is the church won't exist much longer with him as pastor.
Well, that was quick. I thought it would take a few weeks or months for either the church to shrink even more or for the pastor to split. I'm surprised he resigned so quickly.
And not surprised the minister did not repent, as he urged Kerry voters to do.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The newest wave of coverage looks like the media (big surprise) missed or mischaracterized many of the issues here. Turns out that most (maybe all) of the ousted members were Bush supporters, but were very unhappy with the increased political speechmaking from the pulpit. Here's some more info from the article Wowbagger linked to:
quote:Tensions escalated last week, when several members said Chandler called a meeting of the church's board of deacons and declared his intention for East Waynesville to become a politically active church.
Anyone who did not like that direction was free to leave, Chandler said — a statement that caused nine members to walk out.
Many of those who opposed Chandler's leadership said they agreed with the pastor's positions on abortion and other hot-button religious topics, but disliked linking those beliefs to specific political positions and candidates.
"If we wanted politics, we would stay home and watch it 24 hours a day on TV," said Charles Gaddy, 70. "I like Chan. He can preach a good sermon. I just wish he would keep some things out of the church."
Frank Lowe, 73, a leader of the members who left the church in opposition to Chandler's leadership, said, "I think his duty was to preach God's word and let the people sort out what they want to do."
Seems this was also a conflict between older, long-time members of the church and younger, newer members the pastor recruited.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
