N.C. pastor glosses over political furor

Washington Times ^ | Monday, May 9, 2005

[JohnHuang2]

WAYNESVILLE, N.C. (AP) -- The pastor of a small church who led an effort to remove nine members because of their political beliefs tried to welcome them back yesterday, calling the fuss a "great misunderstanding," but some said they still want him to leave. The Rev. Chan Chandler didn't directly address the furor during the service at East Waynesville Baptist Church, but issued a statement afterward through his attorney, saying the church does not care about its members' political affiliations.

[Alia]

NC *Ping*

Please FRmail Constitution Day OR TaxRelief OR Alia if you want to be added to or removed from this North Carolina ping list.

[wolfpat]

There's something about this that just doesn't add up. I'd like to know the rest of the story.

[StonyBurk]

Not enough has been revealed yet. IF the nine were a divisive/factious influence -then I would have to agree with the Pastor. As it has been initially reported it would seem the Pastor has confused partisan politics with his
obligation as Pastor. As with the Pastor who invited Judge Greer to find another place to worship.In that case
it is clear the Judge would have been a distraction at least--and Pastor acted in response to the problem appropriatly. More will be revealed. God will not be mocked.

[NCSteve]

This story is garbage. What passes for reporting these days is just sad.

Problems with the story (just to name a few):

The pastor says it was a misunderstanding and no one was voted out for political affiliation. This group of people say they were voted out on those grounds. The reporter has not even attempted to find any facts that back either side's claim. The members who were voted out claim the pastor is at fault, but the pastor only has one vote. What about the rest of the congregation?

I guess the Washington Times felt it had to print something, but this is a really lousy story. Whoever reported this for the AP needs to find another profession.

[joesbucks]

How would they be able to tally votes whether to keep people in or out. They are ususally voice votes or some other non official way of counting heads. As head of my chruchs council, all our motions are voice motions and an up or down voice vote. Who would ever be able to prove we did this or that.

[4everontheRight]

Apparently this happened in November of last year???? During a heated presidential campaign??? Seems to me if this story were true, these people would have gone straight to the national media and made a fuss so GWB would be associated with right wing religious nuts (as they love to call them).

I call this story crap!

[NCSteve]

Good point.

Another point: Who brings their lawyer to church with them?

The more I hear, the more I'm convinced there is something really fishy about this story. This smells of a Jerry Springer setup.

[joesbucks]

Everytime I see these classic examples of troubles within the church, I believe that we have misunderstood the meaning of the grace we enjoy under salvation. I firmly believe that we have grace for our sins of omission, but the sins of comission we could be held accountable for up to and including loss of salvation. I think this pastor may be flirting with such a situation. He should be asking for an apology from his congregation and going to God in repentence. But bring his attorney? I thought Paul told us in Corinthians to solve these matters as church matters, not in the courts of man. This guy is sending a signal that he's ready to take all comers in court.

[lexington minuteman 1775]

I saw a church memberon FOX this morning along with his attorney who was thrown out of this congregation. He said that folks that voted for GW were also tossed. This sounds more like an internal fight within the church than an outward political motivation.

[Blessed]

Looks like old members who came up in the era when SBC churches were "run" by deacons and believed "priesthood of the believer" to be the most important doctrine of the church.Since mid 80"s when seminaries were reclaimed from liberals SBC churches have been moving more toward a Pastor as Shepard model and preaching that emphasizes the Sovereignty of God.This church is probably in the midst of this change judging by the age of the complainers.

[BelegStrongbow]

I should hesitate to take hearsay as credible, especially when those spreading the rumor have everything to gain by spinning what facts are on offer.

For myself, I can see this scenario:

The pastor has been making more and more comments which can be interpreted as being partisan (that they are actually scriptural goes by the board, the audience outside this church wouldn't know that).

These nine have been getting more vocal themselves and appearing just as partisan, not to mention disruptive in church and fellowship and perhaps even trying to get the pastor to change his politics to suit them (any of them going for a divorce he can't approve of, an abortion they want to be able to talk about, etc?).

They confronted him at fellowship one day last year, basically daring him to rebuke them for their partisan approach. He probably rebuked them and very possibly said something like "Well, if you cannot agree with my preaching, then it might be best for you to go to someone you will better agree with, if your pastor agreeing with you is what you require.". (This would be the 'November' event they allege)

Now in April 2005 comes an election for elder/vestry/deacons (or whatever they call them). These nine stand as a bloc and lose. They confront the whole church as being bigoted against them and bring up the now stale-dated arguments they had with the pastor, perhaps with threats to get him removed. The congregation then moves to excommunicate them as disruptive and even schismatic.

The nine now go to the willing MSM, not least WLOS TV, the DUmmies pick it up and away we go.

Sound plausible, anyone?

In Christ,
Deacon Paul+