Dems Voted Out of Church Weigh Options

JohnnyBz00LS said:
OOOoohhhh! I'm "going on the record"!! I'm scared! (WTF does that mean?)
What?! Do you think you were going to be on Fox News "On the Record" with Greta Van Susteren. LOL.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=154141

Disenfrachisement via Kerry...
"Never again will a million African Americans be denied the right to exercise their vote in the United States of America," Kerry promised
Blasphemy by the Rev...
"I see disturbing signs today that some of our churches have been confused by wolves in sheep's clothing," Jackson said.

"November 2, the power is in your hands, hands that once picked cotton," Jackson said. Amen Brother Jackson said Brother Bryan, Amen.

And fear mongering by Brother Sharpton...Added Sharpton: "Everything we have fought for, marched for, gone to jail for some died for could be reversed if the wrong people are put on the Supreme Court."

All 3 days before the election. See, I can see the differences in Bush talking about how God changed his life for the better and these clowns using every threat and scare tactic in the book to hold on to power.

JohnnyBz00LS said:
BuSh ass kissing RIGHT WING MEDIA.
Thank God we finally have one after 50 years of listening to the likes of Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite. Amen Brother, Amen.
 
So much for respecting peoples' religious beliefs. How typically hypocritical of the self-righteous, regardless of their beliefs. Johnny, you have just showed yourself to be one of the biggest a$$es (used for emphASSis) I know. As I stated, I wasn't wanting an apology as I wasn't offended. But you're just shooting yourself and your opinions in the foot. You want to reach across the aisle, be it Republican or Democrat, Christian or not? Then prove it.

As far as jumping to conclusions, I don't want to beat a dead horse. BUT, you listen to one side of the argument and form a knee-jerk opinion, that, my friend, is JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS. My statement about the word was for the benefit of you, crazyman, and on behalf of those that read this forum and are true believers in God. Or was the point to blatantly offend and run them off? I know that's not why you did crazyman, but Johnny certainly did. Which sickens me because it's basically the same thing he's cursing against. You want to talk about religion? Then do it in a way that will include the religious. It's like posting a picture of a bikini babe in church. Just because you have the ability and the legality to do so, doesn't make it right. And the sad thing? He's so blindly self-righteous that not only will he NOT feel any misgivings for his actions, he's going to up the ante.
 
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I've come to no conclusion. I made a statement based on what I was given to read. Nothing is set in stone. In fact, I would be real intrested in hearing the whole story, and it's very likely that my opinion would change. In all reality, I'm far more intrested in Bryan's ability to turn everything into an attack on liberals than I am these people and their church. I still say that people shouldn't be kicked out of church for their political stance, but, (back to the dead horse), there probably is more to this story.
 
crazyman said:
In all reality, I'm far more intrested in Bryan's ability to turn everything into an attack on liberals than I am these people and their church. I still say that people shouldn't be kicked out of church for their political stance, but, (back to the dead horse), there probably is more to the story.
Bryan is quite able, isn't he? LOL!! His charm is the biggest reason this forum is popular. I know he's enlightened and entertained me on countless occasions.

And I agree with your opinion that people should not be kicked out of a church for their political stance only. It may be that the young pastor of that church was just throwing his weight around and those people decided to fight back and it created a stir which eventually led to their ouster.
 
Kbob said:
So much for respecting peoples' religious beliefs. How typically hypocritical of the self-righteous, regardless of their beliefs. Johnny, you have just showed yourself to be one of the biggest a$$es (used for emphASSis) I know. As I stated, I wasn't wanting an apology as I wasn't offended. But you're just shooting yourself and your opinions in the foot. You want to reach across the aisle, be it Republican or Democrat, Christian or not? Then prove it.

Got your attention, eh? Why then the silence from you when Bryan and others (pissin' buford comes to mind, as does others) goes off on the same type of rampage on "liberals" and those NOT of the "extreme right-wing, BuSh-ass-kissin' persuasion"?? I thought you claimed to be "in the middle". Thanks for disproving that myth, Mr. "unbiased".
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Got your attention, eh? Why then the silence from you when Bryan and others (pissin' buford comes to mind, as does others) goes off on the same type of rampage on "liberals" and those NOT of the "extreme right-wing, BuSh-ass-kissin' persuasion"?? I thought you claimed to be "in the middle". Thanks for disproving that myth, Mr. "unbiased".
Did they target me or what I said in particular? No they did not. You did, however, so quit trying to justify yourself. You're smarter than that. You've seen me let lots of rantings from the left go without a fight. This is an issue that I happen to care about, hence my responses. As far as Bryan goes, he doesn't mean it personally. Surely you've figured that out by now. He's speaking ideologically. And he always has you and others to call his bluff when he goes on those rampages. He's been called more names than I care to think about, yet he's still smiling and jabbing. And most others on the "extreme right-wing, BuSh-ass-kissin' persuasion" are silenced fast enough by you and your comrades. I've always leaned toward the conservative side. That's no secret. I did almost respond when buford was saying something about kicking your rear in another thread, believe it or not. I chose not to until you responded first, and you didn't let me down. You made your point well enough that he changed his tune. You didn't need me to jump on the bandwagon, you were doing fine by yourself. (EDIT: You should have let it go one response sooner in that thread as you had the upper hand, but that's just my opinion.)
 
Kbob,

I have a question for you. You and I actually agree on many more items than you may think yet you egg me on and you've done your share of name calling yourself, albeit slightly more subtly.

My question is; why is it that you assume that I am a Liberal? I have voted Libertarian (waste of a vote, IMHO) and the other elections I've voted Republican. Can't I hate George Walker Bush and still be a Conservative?

Isn't this a parrallel to the Church expulsions, that you claim to be against? I would agree that GWB is probably a better person to lead this country in times of war (which he started) but my vote for Kerry was simply a vote against GWB.

The last time I saw my father-in-law was during the election. I criticized GWB and he said "YOU GOD-DAMNED LIBERAL DEMOCRATS ARE ALL THE SAME". That is the last time I spoke to him. He didn't know my politics yet he assumed that because I was critical of the war in Iraq that my opinion was wrong and that by my statement I had to be Liberal. Is that what you guys on the right of middle think that we are "GOD-DAMNED" because we don't agree with this war and the reasons we went.

I have to tell you that I got behind GWB because I believed that there were WMD and that Saddam was sponsoring terrorism, specifically 9/11. GWB may have been duped by the intellegence community but we are paying him not to be duped. He should have accepted responsibility for his mistake and we could have gone forward as a nation. Many people think that GWB fabricated the reasons for war and now that they have been disproven it's all being washed under by telling us that our true motives were to free the Iraqi people.
 
Barry2952,

My estimation of your political stance is pretty much how you described yourself. So I'm a little puzzled at your post directed towards me. Being voted out for purely political reasons in a church is wrong. That is my stance. My opinion about this particular incident is that there is more to the story than what the ousted members are telling us. It's like a divorce. You listen to one side only, and you tend to hate the other side. But you listen to both sides and you realize that they both were wrong in their own ways. I hate to say it, but that's experience talking. I've been in church for about 18 years now and I've seen my share of disputes. Most were simple misunderstandings that were blown way out of proportion. Used to be that new churches were started as missions by more established churches. Now, new churches are started as a result of a split in another church because people in general are too proud to admit when they're wrong. Which is due in part to our society that encourages individual freedoms (which is good) but discourages humility and temperance.

I'm sorry about your father-in-law. But I'm not him. I've discussed politics with family that didn't go well either. But they were the ones that started the conversation and they were the ones that lost their cool, not me. And trust me, there are 3 curse words that I don't use. You get me mad enough in person and I'll let you have just about all the others, so I'm no saint.

I'm sure GWB isn't telling everything, no politician does. But I can't expect him to ignore all the intelligence that is given to him and with godlike discernment know that it's wrong. That may be a good enough reason to hate him for you, but not for me. You have every right to believe that, just like I have every right not to. You take a pot shot insult at someone or something for no other reason than hatred or dislike and there will be times when I respond to them. That's you and that's me.
 
Kbob said:
Did they target me or what I said in particular? No they did not. You did, however, so quit trying to justify yourself.

My post was in response to Bryan and his rant that started on pg1 of this thread, NOT anything YOU posted. Next time, don't step into the crossfire. But now you have a taste of how stupid some of the crap that flows from Bryan's keyboard sounds...... from a perspective near the middle.

BTW, I actually agree w/ you that lawyers should not get involved in this matter. I saw one of the guys that got voted out last night on TV w/ his lawyer, hoping to eventually hear "the other side of the story", but was disappointed in hearing only the one side we've already heard.
 
Kbob said:
I'm sure GWB isn't telling everything, no politician does. But I can't expect him to ignore all the intelligence that is given to him and with godlike discernment know that it's wrong. That may be a good enough reason to hate him for you, but not for me. You have every right to believe that, just like I have every right not to. You take a pot shot insult at someone or something for no other reason than hatred or dislike and there will be times when I respond to them. That's you and that's me.

If that is where the facts stopped, GW's getting "duped" might be forgivable. The fact that GW had designs on Saddam BEFORE 9/11 makes it UN-forgivable IMO.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
My post was in response to Bryan and his rant that started on pg1 of this thread, NOT anything YOU posted. Next time, don't step into the crossfire. But now you have a taste of how stupid some of the crap that flows from Bryan's keyboard sounds...... from a perspective near the middle.
Give me a break, you're about as innocent as Michael Jackson. Why else did you emphasize GD if not to offend with your personal liberty of typing that word? It's getting deep around here, that's for sure. I'm glad I wore boots today.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
If that is where the facts stopped, GW's getting "duped" might be forgivable. The fact that GW had designs on Saddam BEFORE 9/11 makes it UN-forgivable IMO.
Broken record, scratch, broken record . . . .

EDIT: FDR had designs on Hitler before Pearl Harbor as well, does that make it wrong in and of itself? (rhetorical question Johnny, so don't bother answering it unless you want to fill the room with more of your crap)
 
McDonalds jingle playing...

I'm loving it!

Golf was great. I'm burnt to a crisp. Just checked in and see some serious reflecting going on. The post from Barry almost made me... well, ... almost made me.

After the buzz wears off, I'll get into it.

Btw, last putt on 18 was a 25 footer off the fringe and the anal retentives I was playing with couldn't even say 'Nice Shot'.
 
Kbob said:
Did you read the last line of that article? My question: "What is the other side of the story!!??" Were these ousted people doing something inappropriate as well? Or are we just going to overlook that? Don't forget, the pastor didn't kick them out, they were VOTED out by a majority of the congregation.

Wrong, they were voted out by a few including the pastor. The church has 100 members, 40 have left in protest of the 9 that were voted out. One was a Republican. The ones made to leave had told the pastor that they did not want politics in the Church. The IRS is currently investigating.

By Andre A. Rodriguez
STAFF WRITER
published: May 9, 2005 2:15 pm

WAYNESVILLE – The turmoil embroiling East Waynesville Baptist Church and Pastor Chan Chandler is drawing national attention from religious and political groups.

Last October Chandler told those in his congregation “the question then comes in the Baptist Church how do I vote, let me just say this right now 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.”

Nine members of East Waynesville say they had their membership revoked last week and 40 others left in protest after tension over political views came to a head, church members say. “Our memberships were terminated because we did not agree to have a political church,” said Thelma Lowe, the lone Republican voted out. “I did not vote for Kerry.”

One of the first to speak out was Ralph G. Neas, president of the liberal People For the American Way Foundation.

“What have we come to when the doors of a church are closed to longtime members because of their political beliefs?” he said. “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.”

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said religious right groups have been pressing evangelical churches to get deeply involved in partisan politics and this kind of controversy is the natural outcome.

“This is an outrage,” he said. “Houses of worship exist to bring people together for worship, not split them apart over partisan politics. I think there is an important lesson here for the whole country,” Lynn continued. “Americans do not expect to be ordered to vote for certain candidates by their religious leaders.”

Closer to home, Jim Royston, executive director and treasurer of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, called the action “highly irregular” in a statement on the convention’s Web site. East Waynesville is a member of the convention and contributes financially to the organization’s mission efforts. The convention has no roll in decision making at local churches.

George Bullard, the convention’s second in command, said if a church’s bylaws allow for a pastor to establish who can be members, he has every right to exclude some.

“Membership is a local church issue,” he said. “It is not something the state convention would enter into.”

Royston did say that a position as the one Chandler is reported to have taken could threaten a church’s tax-exempt status because it could be interpreted as stepping into political advocacy, an action prohibited by Internal Revenue Service rules.

On Sunday, the pastor released a written statement through his attorney, John J. Pavey Jr., following Sunday’s worship service that read, “The goal of East Waynesville Baptist Church is to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a lost and dying world.

“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.

“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 also announced there would be a business meeting Tuesday night, which will be open to all church members, “including anyone who was at Monday’s meeting.” He did not specify what the meeting would be about, but members speculate it is an attempt to calm the situation.

The estranged members said they were unsure whether they would be at the meeting until they met with their attorney.

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050509/NEWS01/50509008/1001
 
Looks like it is over, the pastor resigned:

Waynesville church pastor at center of controversy over pulpit politics resigns



WAYNESVILLE - The pastor at the center of a storm of controversy over his preaching of politics from his pulpit resigned tonight.

Just a few minutes after an East Waynesville Baptist Church business meeting began, Pastor Chan Chandler and his wife left the meeting without comment. Later, the pastor's lawyer said Chandler decided it was best for the church that he leave. Attorney John Pavey said Chandler would pursue other opportunities and continue working on his master's degree.

A large group of Chandler's supporters also departed the meeting. Misty Turner said she would no longer attend the church because she couldn't support it any longer.

"We were not a cult. We never bowed down before Chan Chandler," Turner said.

Last week, nine long-time members of the church said they were kicked out because they disagreed with Chandler's use of the pulpit to push politics. During a sermon last October, Chandler, 33, told the congregants they should repent or resign if they planned to vote for John Kerry in November’s presidential election, according to 30-year church member Selma Morris said.

The turmoil embroiling the Southern Baptist church has drawn national attention from political watchdog organizations, as well as the national media.
 
scott9050 said:
Wrong, they were voted out by a few including the pastor. The church has 100 members, 40 have left in protest of the 9 that were voted out. One was a Republican. The ones made to leave had told the pastor that they did not want politics in the Church. The IRS is currently investigating.
Were these "long time members" active at all? Or were they just members in name only, basically only coming to church on Easter Sunday? I'm not saying people that do this are wrong, but membership numbers in churches are deceiving due to inactive members who no longer go to church. Methinks you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to how some churches work. You have a core of people that do most of the work and try to run things as best they can. These are the ones that go to church on Sunday mornings, Sunday evenings, and Wednesday evenings because they love God and church.

This is just more of the same. We still haven't heard the other side of the story. But it seems that the inevitable resignation has occurred. The national negative media attention assured that pastors fate. This pastor did not have to resign. He had the support of most of his members. They are the ones that pay his salary. His job was secure. But he did resign. Why? I have no doubt he said what was claimed, but he retracted it, probably several times. But the ball was set in motion and the crowd cried "crucify him". And instead of staying put, that pastor decided to resign. Because he was right about the goal of his church. And there was now too much that got in the way of the goal of that church. So true to that goal, he resigned. If his goal was really about him and being in charge or whatever, he would not have resigned.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
An FYI, BuSh DID do the same damn thing, but instead of it making the front page like when Kerry did it, those GOD-DAMN, self-rightous, selfish, anti-american "evangelicals" made a friggin documentary on it called "God in the white house" or something like that. It was aired on LINK TV back in October and showed BuSh sitting on the "stage" in a church talking about how his "religion" influences his political decision making.

You think this is something President Bush started...read the D of I

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I hate to break it to you Jonny but religion and God have been an integral part of this country and it's people since the beginning. I certainly hope that my President uses a sound basis of judgment like Christianity to assist in his decision making process. It's certainly a better voice to have in your head than P. Diddy or Jeanine Garafolo like alot of libbies. Your hatred of those with faith does not represent even five percent of the US population. Oh and these so called "america hating" evangelicals were not the ones burning the American flag during protests back in 03 it was america hating liberals...

Oh and before you go and call me just another "Right wing jesus freak nutjob"...save your breath...I'm an atheist. But I don't hate people of faith nor do I think their beliefs are stupid. I respect people of all faiths and non faiths and their beliefs...and their political stance...as long as it's not ignorant.
 
FreeFaller said:
I respect people of all faiths and non faiths and their beliefs...and their political stance...as long as it's not ignorant.
:slam DOH! I was so close.
 
Pastor Accused of Running Out Dems Quits

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. :Beer :Beer :Beer :Beer :Beer

Boy does this guy have it wrong!
"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."

As a pastor you give your self to God and the Church - The hurt done is to the church not his family. His failure to do his job hurt his family!!
 
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/10/church.politics.ap/

So it was really about abortion, huh? That's a whole 'nother mess then. Sounds like he kept hammering that message and some people didn't want him preaching against it and got sick of it. Then they used his one comment against Kerry and resigning and what not to the fullest. Rejoice if you want, but there were no winners here today.

EDIT: I believe his responsibility to his family comes before his church.
 
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."

Members said the troubles had been simmering since last fall, when Chandler endorsed Bush and denounced Kerry from the pulpit — saying those who planned to vote for the Democrat should "repent or resign."

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."

Chandler supporter Rhonda Trantham, 27, saw no problem with Chandler's approach. "If it's in the Bible, I believe it should be preached," she said.

Norman Jameson of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina said the convention — which generally allows its congregations free rein to conduct their business — will try to help Chandler find a new church position if he so desires.

"There was evidently a politicization of pulpit in that the pastor is passionate and he interprets that one political party had a stronger stance on abortion than the other," Jameson said. "Passion makes things happen. In a church leadership role, it can also divide people."

Speaking to those who remained after Chandler's departure, Lowe acknowledged the pain on both sides of the schism. "This is a sad hour in this group's life. This is a sad hour in the other group's life," he said.

But he was firm in his opposition to Chandler.

"A person that will take abuse and not stand up for what's right is not worth their salt," he declared.

Out in the parking lot, as she got into her truck, Trantham was equally adamant.

"God will always fix things in the end," she said.
 
mespock said:
"A person that will take abuse and not stand up for what's right is not worth their salt," he declared.
That's what the world says. I saw this question earlier in this thread: WWJD?

Your post just further proves that there were no winners. And it didn't say anything about those that opposed abortion and their views. I'm sure that would have been too militantly left-wing and would have cast a bad light and would have slowed the process.
 
mespock said:
Anyone who did not like that direction was free to leave, Chandler said — a statement that caused nine members to walk out.
So is this saying that the members were not voted out, but chose to leave and took this thing to the media and liberal watchdog groups?
 
Kbob said:
So is this saying that the members were not voted out, but chose to leave and took this thing to the media and liberal watchdog groups?
Oh, could that be! They must have been disenfranchised church-goers. Somebody call Jesse. Wait, these were white folks. Never Mind.
 

Members online

Back
Top