News-Record.com

It's a shame, really. Over 200 years ago, our country tried to make religion and politics officially separate. At that time, the religious leaders who had grown up used to the idea that the church should work "hand in glove" as part of the governance process, started thier work to destroy that concept.

Too many people today don't seem to realize the danger to religious liberty this effort poses. This story gives a hint of what would be in store if religion once again gained the political power it held in the Dark Ages.

If that church has a federal tax exemption, that exemption should be yanked post-haste. The rules for political activity by nonprofits aren't always black and white, but this is about as clear and blatant a violation of the federal ban on partisan political activity by charities as I can imagine.

I just got this in an email:

STATEMENT BY RALPH G. NEAS, PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY FOUNDATION

Following the report that nine members of the East Waynesville Baptist Church in western North Carolina were excommunicated because they did not support President Bush in the election, Ralph G. Neas, President of People For the American Way Foundation, had the following statement:

“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?

“I would say to Senator Frist and Karl Rove that this is what comes of attempts to manipulate religion for political gain. Americans simply will not accept the claim that ‘unless you accept my political beliefs, you cannot be a good Christian.’

“This nation was founded on respect for religious belief, and tolerance for religious diversity. Men and women of faith have every right to advocate for their political beliefs. While churches, of course, can set their own membership standards, no one should punish people of faith for their political beliefs.

“This is terribly sad. I urge the President to express his opposition to all attempts to manipulate faith for political gain.”

“This is terribly sad. I urge the President to express his opposition to all attempts to manipulate faith for political gain.”

Yeah, like that will ever happen! Oy!!

Here's a quote that strikes me as pertinent:

"It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster."
[Voltaire]

Watch for exorbitant Kool-aid sales in the Waynesville area . . .

Why do we have to ask the President or any of our leaders to condemn this outrageous action? Where is our "leadership" and why aren't they responding out of a sense of morality? Or is morality merely an election-year sound byte?

First off, I don't think that our good friends at the "People for the American Way" really expect Dubya to condemn people who try to use religion for political gain. After all, he's been doing just that ever since he entered politics. The point of the request was to highlight the way Bush and almost everyone in the Republican Party has done it.

But second, I have been waiting to see other religious leaders express some outrage over this pastor's actions. Or at least a little consternation. So far, it's been pretty calm in the pulpits, so far as I can tell.

Is it possible that the people who have been shouting political activism from the pulpits for so long have deadened the senses of Americans? Are the people of this country really unable to notice it when something this dangerous to our liberties comes along? It's something to think about.

I believe the most apropos term for Pastor Chandler is 'misguided'.

First, I feel that this is a seriously misguided pastor/minister (Chan Chandler).

Second, I too believe that this church should have it's tax-exempt status scrutinized.

Third, undoubtedly there is a majority of the membership that supports this kind of religious hood-winking or this man would not still be in the pastorate there.

Lastly, as an ordained and recovering Southern Baptist, I am appalled at how the NC Baptist State Convention has handled this. I have read that the aforementioned noted that membership bylaws are on the local level and therefore, the "state" will not intervene. However, I recall three cases when the "state" did intervene regarding how local churches dealt local churches and their members; 1) Pullen Memorial BC (Raleigh, NC 1992), 2) Binkley Memorial BC (Chapel Hill, NC 1992), 3) ? BC (Kannapolis/Concord 2003-04). In each of these cases, the local and state leadership spoke out on issues of how these individual churches dealt with individual members. Yet now, the "state" "does not" get involved in local membership issues! HOGWASH!

As a former seminary professor stated, the Southern Baptist Convention is Southern and a Convention, however, it is no longer Baptist!

When will people realize that far too many of our religious groups have been raped by politics and the Republican Party? Better yet, when will the real people stand and and say ENOUGH?

Again, this is another sad case for Christianity. And yet, another black eye. At this rate, no one should fear Christianity any longer, it is self destructing. Just like communism, Christianity is deteriorating from forces within, not on the outside.

This weekend Rev. Chandler said it was all a misunderstanding....

Well, of course it was a misunderstanding, now that he has seen the whirlwind he is going to have to reap from his blowing out of hot air. The big problem of course is that he won't admit even today that he was the one who misunderstood the ramifications of what he decided to do.

I'm sure a lot of folks were parrotting Lex.... On another note, he didn't, however, apologize. A church member said that that would have been all he needed. Do you think we discount the imporantance of a simple, "I was wrong?"

The reverend is a moron, and in a perfect world he would be looking for a job. If the remaining members of his congregation prefer his "leadership," so be it. In that case, they need to remember it is no longer a church, it's a political cult.
I am sure the members that left will find other houses of worship. The saddest aspect of the story to me is how it will tar Baptists as a whole in the national media. I was raised in a Southern Baptist church, but I know there are Primitive Baptists, Independent Baptists, American Baptists, Baptists affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention and those that are not .... I realize there is a range of ideas and differences under the "Baptist" umbrella, but few in the national media do.
And of course, any church that has this kind of litmus test for members needs to lose their IRS tax-esempt status yesterday.

Nancy:

Do you think we discount the imporantance of a simple, "I was wrong?"

It is perhaps more prevalent these days than in the past, the penchant of people to refuse to admit they were wrong on something. It's as if people fear "losing face." There are many times in my life when I was wronged on something and got really hot under the collar. Once anger starts rising, it's a rare thing to hear "I'm sorry" from someone... but on those occasions that I have, I have had no problem with forgiving and (for the most part) forgetting the matter.

I've read that this pastor is 33 years old. Being quite a bit older than this, I would tend to think this was a matter of the error of inexperience in life. He has a big opportunity to learn from his missteps over the past year or so. I hope he has the maturity to do so, but I'm not exactly sanguine on the matter.

Nancy, yes, I believe that sometimes we (humans) do discount the statement "I was wrong." And even worse, some events make this statement invalid due to the ramifications of the actions that have preceeded it.

As for Mr. Chandler only being 33 years of age, while that is young, in a real point, he could have been pastoring for as long as 8 years (4 years of college - graduating at age 22; 3 years of seminary - graduating at age 25). However, I tend to believe that there is not a tremendous amount of education in this situation. Sadly, the seminary education being offered by Southern Baptists can hardly be construed as education. At best, it is nothing more than cloning. At worst, it is a disgrace and waste of the tithes & offerings of Southern Baptists throughout their 160 history.

Sadly too, this matter has not just cast a negative light on Baptists as a whole, it has also given Christianity a "black eye." So often people do not consider the consequences for their actions. They only see the right in what they do without considering the other people that may be involved and the hurt/harm that can be caused.

Regarding this possibly being a lack of life experience for Mr. Chandler, that is very possible. Yet, it should not be an excuse. Hopefully Mr. Chandler will learn and move forward. I was saddened by a comment noted in the N & R from an AP article on this meeting of Tuesday evening 5/10/2005 which follows; "I am resigning with gratitude in my heart for all of you, particularly those of you who love me and my family."

To make a separate distinction and notation regarding those who supported him is a "slap in the face" to the congregation. This, to me, is not a lack of life experience, rather it is a total disrespect for those with differing views and shows a tremendous amount of immaturity.

To make a separate distinction and notation regarding those who supported him is a "slap in the face" to the congregation. This, to me, is not a lack of life experience, rather it is a total disrespect for those with differing views and shows a tremendous amount of immaturity.

You noticed that, too? I thought it was very telling that he stated that he was leaving to avoid further hurt to himself and his family. Not even mentioning the fact that this thing was tearing apart the church that had paid him for his services for the past 3 years -- that takes someone who's pretty bloody obtuse.

Eric, yep, I noticed Mr. Chandler's remark!

Mr. Chandler is what can currently be viewed as a Fundamentalist Southern Baptist pastor/minister. This is very hurtful to me, as I was at one time affiliated with that group of people. However, when the change started taking place strongly in the mid-1990s, I left that group.

And as formentioning what was happening to the church, that is probably viewed as "they are getting what they deserve."