News-Record.com

Chandler's leaving is not a smart move at all. He clearly sees himself persacuted by liberls instead of a pastor who sinned against God and his (Chandler's)entire church. He's sure to repeat his past mistakes.

Splitting a small church to start anew is worse than his initial offense. His old church will suffer for his mistakes.

Restoration, reconciliation, forgiveness, healing- all these things have been thrown out the window by Chandler's leaving.

On the bright side, Chandler's departure almost certainly leaves the church's tax exemption intact. In that, at least, he appears to have recognized that some things were more important than his opinion. And I wouldn't be surprised if some of the members who leave with him eventually return. That would give this unfortunate story a happy ending.

I prefer to look on the bright side. And I think it will be better for the church to get a new minister. There's plenty of opportunity for restoration, reconciliation, forgiveness, etc., among the membership.

So can we expect the IRS to investigate every black preacher in Greensboro that makes a plea for Democratic votes during election season?
How about the Greensboro Pulpit Forum, which is nothing more than a political activist organization aligned with the Democrats? Should each of these "preachers" be forced to resign?
If you're going to ostracize men of the cloth for political preachings, let's be fair and paint all of them with the same brush.

Relax, John. The IRS is investigating two churches that allegedly supported Democratic candidates in the last election. The IRS seems to be treating both sides equally. As far as the pastor resigning, that's due to the fact that people were actually forced out of the church due to their beliefs while there have been no reports of that in any other churches being investigated.

I am confouded at what you and Lex call the positive side. The man, Chandler, is moving on and will presumably maintain his position about kicking out people who disagree with him politically. You were both so offended by that- as you should have been.

Nothing is really different.

Thanks, Chip.

Wouldn't the congregation of another church be cautious about calling a minister who's been so divisive - and could cost them their tax-exempt status?

Then why do we not see lead stories from the news media such as "Black Churches Investigated For Urging Democrat votes" or some such attention-grabbing title?
The liberallly biased media makes great hay out of anything that could possibly be construed as anti-Bush or anti-conservative, but sweeps the sins of the other side under the rug.

Thanks, John.

I provided a link above to just such a story in the Miami Herald.

Hi Don. I beleive this pastor left to start a new church with many of his old flock. We're not talking about United Methodists or PCA, ARP, PCUSA, etc. So his 'calling' has already occured.

I know you and Lex are aware this stuff went on for years- particularly on the left side. (The right side seems to be more forthcoming).

Also, a church (E. Wayneville Baptist), rather than a religious organization (Focus on the Family), is really much harder to prosecute. This Chandler guy probably made it clear IN HIS OPINION that a vote for Kerry was the same thing as commiting an abortion or advocating Gay marraige. Therefore- you vote for Kerry and you have no business being here.

I disagree with his logic, but it would be hard to penalize a church for that. It would also be a waste of resources. If this occured at a mega church, (it just might), then you make a point.

"Then why do we not see lead stories from the news media such as "Black Churches Investigated For Urging Democrat votes" or some such attention-grabbing title?"

There is nothing being "swept aside" by the media. Those other instances I mentioned are ongoing investigations that have been going on for months, not breaking news. Also, they didn't happen in this state, thus less coverage here. And as I mentioned, no one was asked to leave those churches for their political beliefs. That is another step that is pretty much unprecidented and is appalling on a higher level, in my opinion.

Not true, Andrew.
Anything that can be twisted to be remotely damaging to convervatives, or President Bush, is blasted across the headlines ad nauseum. Worse violations by the Democrats rate little coverage.
It's been going on for years, just seems to be more of it these days.

Worse violations? Worse that what? Worse than deciding to go to war and then coming up with reasons to con the American people into accepting it? Bush has gotten a virtual free pass on this! How much coverage have you seen of the memo recently released in Britain proving the US had decided to go to war whether or not inspectors got in and whether or not the UN approved months before the question was ever put before Congress! The memo also says intelligence was being changed to fit the policy. This basically says George W. Bush is a war criminal, and yet no one makes a fuss. The so-called liberal media gave the Bush administration and unprecedented free pass for the three years after 9/11 and only in recent months have they started to have to courage to criticize it. The media has been way too conservative since the mid 1990s when this myth of the liberal started spreading thanks to Limbaugh and others.

If the media has been liberal for years answer these questions:

Why did they pay more attention to an extra-marital affair than to lying about a war that has cost thousands of innocent lives?

In 2000, why did more newspapers (based on numbers of papers and readers) endorse Bush than Gore? Since more people voted for Gore, that would make the media ever so slightly to the right of the mainstream.

Why did the press give so much free coverage to the "Swift Boat Veterans" when almost all of their claims were unfounded and easily proven incorrect?

Why did the media assume the administration's claims about WMD in Iraq were true? They perpetuate the idea that everyone thought they had them, which is untrue. There were many in the foreign press, governments, and the UN who believed the evidence of WMD was sketchy at best.

If the media is finally getting a backbone, maybe it's because of the way the administration has been cynically manipulating them through allowing fake reporters in the White House, paying columnists, and releasing propoganda disguised as news reports.