# issue hits blogosphere- Democrats asked to leave Baptist church



## rmwilliamsjr (May 6, 2005)

i don't think i have ever seen the instanteous volume of comments that this has provoked in the last few hours.



> Religion and Politics Clash
> Religion and politics clash over a local church's declaration that Democrats are not welcome.
> 
> East Waynesville Baptist asked nine members to leave. Now 40 more have left the church in protest. Former members say Pastor Chan Chandler gave them the ultimatum, saying if they didn't support George Bush, they should resign or repent. The minister declined an interview with News 13. But he did say "the actions were not politically motivated." There are questions about whether the bi-laws were followed when the members were thrown out.
> ...


http://www.wlos.com/


i saw it first at:
http://www.livejournal.com/community/ljdemocrats/

followed a link to:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3604552#3604716
where the comments are being added faster than my software will reload the page.

there are several blog search tools that ought to record this volume.
the response will end up a news story in itself.

akin to the traffic that discussed whether Kerry ought to be allowed communion as he didn't opposed abortion. 

i bet the big story will be the response, not the action itself *grin*.
....

[Edited on 5-6-2005 by rmwilliamsjr]

[Edited on 5-6-2005 by rmwilliamsjr]


----------



## RamistThomist (May 6, 2005)

Next,
Civil Religion, what a joke!


----------



## Formerly At Enmity (May 6, 2005)

Zoinks!!! my fam started a Baptist church so i'm more than aware of the general goofiness that can occur but this is truly mind-boggling...the good thing is that it gave me a reason to do this...


----------



## sastark (May 6, 2005)

While I can't agree with the reported quote from the pastor ("If you didn't vote for Bush, then repent") I wonder what people's opinions are of bringing under discipline (which is basically what this pastor did) members who consistantly vote Democrat.

Please note - I'm not asking if we should discipline members who do NOT vote Republican - I think there are other ways to vote and still have a clear conscience before God. I'm asking specifically about members who always vote Democrat.


----------



## crhoades (May 6, 2005)

And it's not even election time!

To generate some heat and hopefully some light, here are a couple excerpts from the DNC Platform: Link



> Let there be no mistake: what America needs are public schools that compete with one another and are held accountable for results, not private school vouchers that drain resources from public schools and hand over the public's hard-earned tax dollars to private schools with no accountability.





> *CHOICE*
> 
> The Democratic Party stands behind the right of every woman to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of ability to pay. We believe it is a fundamental constitutional liberty that individual Americans - not government - can best take responsibility for making the most difficult and intensely personal decisions regarding reproduction. This year's Supreme Court rulings show to us all that eliminating a woman's right to choose is only one justice away. That's why the stakes in this election are as high as ever.
> 
> ...


----------



## JohnV (May 6, 2005)

Interesting, Chris, the way you put those two together. Between the lines we can see that the responsibility before birth is on the mother, whether or not she wants the child, without accountability; but after that it becomes a matter of public accountability and personal responsibility is seen as non-accounting. 

The question is whether or not political presuasions come under the realm of Church discipline, considering our present political ethos. To put this also into a Canadian context, we have a bit of a curious situation here in Canada. The Liberal Party is in trouble over the Sponsorship scandal, and so has put the same-sex proposition on the backburner. So they might be saved from an impending problem: with Ratzinger in the RCC White House (sorry, U.S. brothers, no offence intended) we just might see Martin & Co. put out of the church (because they are Catholics), not just out of office. It's a possibility. 

On the other hand, the Canadian public has beed faced with two very unwanted possibilities: either re-elect a corrupt Liberal government, or elect a Conservative government which will try to re-introduce a form of morality again, but with big business the driving force behind it. The latter is seen as a step backwards; the former is seen as continuing the Status Quo, even if it is corrupt. 

But what are the churches doing? Is someone's own political views an indifferent matter to the Church? If someone from the Church votes Liberal in the next election, is that person not defying his own creed? The Liberals are both internally corrupt and outwardly bent on immorality. Is is not, like Seth said, a matter of discipline in the Church?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 6, 2005)

Where does it say in Holy Writ you must vote for Bush or anyone specifically? And if you dont your excomunicated?

Blade


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (May 6, 2005)

i understand that when i study something it becomes a driving force and i see it reflected everywhere. so forgive me a little for this analogy.

i'm working on my sunday school classes on the american civil war.
several topics are related to both the abortion issue and the bigger issue of enforcing church discipline.

one is the Presbyterian ideal that the Church and State are distinct. interpenetrating, overlapping jurisdictions, yes, but still distinct things. a common thread in how Presbyterians handled slavery, especially in the South was to label it either socio-political and hence outside the realm of the Church or as adiaphoria-things not essential where Christian conscience would decide on an individual basis, not a church wide one.

This 'allergy' to political declarations is a distinctive that i have seen up close in both the OPC and PCA. A quick study of Machen and his stance on prohibition would show this as well, there are things that are moral issues but not church stances.

It was the abolitionists that 'moralized' the slavery debate, both the desire for peace and unity in the church and the complexity of the issue kept Presbyterians from tackling it for several generations.

now what does this have to do with either abortion or church discipline?
in many ways, the conservative church in america over the last 25 years has repudiated these two ideas: adiaphoria and no-political-pronouncements and has firmly embraced the opposite, partisan political involvement, even to the point that to most of my secular friends Christianity=Republican, and they are not at all surprised at this news item.

i would be curious if any one knows of an extended study of how abortion was politized. especially studies that would compare it to either prohibition or the issues of slavery.

tia

...


----------



## RamistThomist (May 6, 2005)

Ok, I was picking at NeoCons earlier. Here I comment on the moronism of Dems:



> Let there be no mistake: what America needs are public schools that compete with one another and are held accountable for results, not private school vouchers that drain resources from public schools and hand over the public's hard-earned tax dollars to private schools with no accountability.



They finally realize that little Johnny can't read. It reminds me of an old folk song,

_How many times can a man turn his head and pretend he just doesn't see?_


----------



## JohnV (May 6, 2005)

What d'ya mean "old"? That was written when I was a kid.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 6, 2005)

I read about that song once in a sociology textbook, John!


----------



## JohnV (May 6, 2005)

Whoa!

OK, that's it. If I'm so old, then why can't I remember bobby socks, the seam up the back of her hose, and sock hops? 

Oh, wait, I do remember those. 

OK, what about Red Skelton jokes: Why is he skipping? Because his doctor told him to take his medicine on day and skip a day: this is his day to skip. OK, so maybe I'm a little old. But a sociology book? I miss my cacoon.


----------



## turmeric (May 7, 2005)

Boy, you have NO idea what it was like...we had to walk forty miles through the snow to go to school in the one-cave schoolhouse - that is, if the saber-tooth tigers weren't wandering about!


----------



## Solo Christo (May 7, 2005)

Gosh, I'm glad I didn't have to go to school with you! I mean, we also had to walk to school forty miles in the snow--but at least we had newspaper to staple to our feet (for shoes that is) when we were kids. Man, you guys had it rough!


----------



## turmeric (May 7, 2005)




----------



## RamistThomist (May 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Boy, you have NO idea what it was like...we had to walk forty miles through the snow to go to school in the one-cave schoolhouse - that is, if the saber-tooth tigers weren't wandering about!



I actually did run to school in the snow I few times (about 3.5 miles).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 11, 2005)

*Minister resigns*

Looks like the guy resigned and is moving on.Christianity Today reports resignation


----------



## Anton Bruckner (May 12, 2005)

I'm glad I'm not in that church. That Church exemplifies what Christian Liberty is. Makes me scared of what woud happen if the reins of the country get turned over to ultra conservatives like the Pat Robertson types. It will be nothing more than religious tyrrany, like how the Pharisees held sway over 1st century Jerusalem.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 12, 2005)

On one hand I rejoice when Democrats squirm, but on the other I get annoyed at NeoCon religion, which is what I see here.


----------



## Poimen (May 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> I'm glad I'm not in that church. That Church exemplifies what Christian Liberty is. Makes me scared of what woud happen if the reins of the country get turned over to ultra conservatives like the Pat Robertson types. It will be nothing more than religious tyrrany, like how the Pharisees held sway over 1st century Jerusalem.


----------



## Poimen (May 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> On one hand I rejoice when Democrats squirm, but on the other I get annoyed at NeoCon religion, which is what I see here.



Just curious: What is your definition of "NeoCon religion?"


----------



## RamistThomist (May 12, 2005)

Giving religious approval to the Republican Party, no matter what it does. NeoCon religion--while having sincere Christians in it--will overlook any of the GOP's policies that contradict scripture (and the Constitution, for that matter) because we have a Christian president and he is doing what he knows best, or something like that.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 12, 2005)

So should people who support abortion be excommunicated? Perhaps we must look at this situation as an issue based problem rather than political party affiliation.


----------



## crhoades (May 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> So should people who support abortion be excommunicated? Perhaps we must look at this situation as an issue based problem rather than political party affiliation.



Should we define "support"? I assume that by casting a vote for a candidate/party that has it on the platform would constitute support in this case.

Even the RC church tried denying mass to John Kerry...


----------



## RamistThomist (May 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> So should people who support abortion be excommunicated? Perhaps we must look at this situation as an issue based problem rather than political party affiliation.



He would have had a stronger case that way.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (May 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Giving religious approval to the Republican Party, no matter what it does. NeoCon religion--while having sincere Christians in it--will overlook any of the GOP's policies that contradict scripture (and the Constitution, for that matter) because we have a Christian president and he is doing what he knows best, or something like that.


the above is exactly why I was banned from Raptureready.
The motto for most evangelicals seem to be, "Bush and Republicans are Impeccable, Democrats, Liberals thoroughly evil".

Funny thing I used to think like that until realizing the real deal behind the war in Iraq. But that's another thread. Let me say, I have dumped both political parties.


----------



## Larry Hughes (May 12, 2005)

Keon,

I'm with you brother. I've been a life long Ronald Reagan Republican (before conversion for me), and I've been thoroughly disgusted with the Republican party in the recent years.

I've some pretty liberal friends that are pro-environmental (the field I work in) that constantly would bring up issues about the "Christians" in the Republican Party not caring about the environment because of the pending end of the world (the Rapture/Dispensationalist garbage). So, I'd have to set an apologetic showing how that view by those Republican/Dispensatinoalist is completely contra Scripture, especially their view of environmental abuse (in the form of consumerism). Then go back on the other side and discuss the abortion issue. In the heat of it I had to begin rethinking who (party) could I support?

Then there is President Bush's and his administrations constant reference to "people of faith" which is apparently code for a pantheon of gods.

So, I'm not sure what to think of the Republicans. On the one hand we have the Democrats who are more like open sinners and the on other the Republicans who are more like false saints. Many Republicans I know feel the same way today.

Michael Horton had a great quote the other day on WHI that is somewhat relevant - it was about what a town would look like if Satan ran it? Our gut reaction is a drunken pool hall, strip joints, crime ski high, rebels, etc... But he said, "If Satan ran a town it would likely have white picket fences in every yard, well behaved children, well kept homes, law abiding citizens, every single one of which went religiously to a church every single Sunday that never REALLY preached Christ (Gospel) though His name be mentioned much and as a moral example. Pretty much Utah." 

ldh


----------



## Peter (May 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> Let me say, I have dumped both political parties.



 

But as Patrick pointed out, by reductio ad absurdum, our political views are subject to the authority of Christ and violations of Christ's will concerning politics ought to be disciplined by the Church.

[Edited on 5-12-2005 by Peter]


----------



## RamistThomist (May 12, 2005)

> In the heat of it I had to begin rethinking who (party) could I support?



Think third-party. Don't make any radical (if we can even call it that, given the recent betrayal) switches just yet, but it is something to consider. The Constitutional Party has the problem of a few amendments which are unbiblical and unconstitutional. Nevertheless, it seeks to protect God-given liberties.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 12, 2005)

Great Horton quote, by the way.


----------



## Larry Hughes (May 12, 2005)

Peter,

I agree, so would that include the President's denial of the faith by publically defining it as something that it is not in the Christian church (a universalist/substance) and thereby effectively denying the Gospel altogether from which true saving faith finds its validity?

Not that I support democrats, I'd rather take a caning.

ldh


----------



## Peter (May 12, 2005)

Larry, Yes.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Slippery_
> ...



Well, I wasn't necessarily implying dsicipline for voting a particular party. If I were the baptist pastor, I would have booted those guys for supporting abortion, if in fact that was their agenda. They could still vote for a pro-life democrat in good coscnience without being excommunicated I think. That's why I wanted to turn it to issues rather than parties. Issues are more specific and clear. When you are voting, you are voting for the candidate, not the party necessarily. At least that is how it's suppose to be. You are voting for the one to represent you. And of course I'm using abortion as an example. We could list other issues as grounds for excommunicating as well, like promoting sexual immorality. But perhaps that's how we should approach the issue. And of course this would widen the feild party-wise as well as there are several republican and third party candidates that support abortion too. But from the pulpit, I would avoid endorsing or condemning candidates and stick with the important issues from a biblical perspective that we are voting for, and express the duty of the Christian to vote accordingly as their conscience allows.


----------



## crhoades (May 12, 2005)

So to go with Patrick's thought a bit...Let's say pastors only speak out on issues and not necessarily candidates...Let's take a very black and white case:

Democratic candidate is pro-abortion and also favors gay marriage (not to mention enormous government, welfare state...etc...)

There are people in the church that always vote Democrat because, well they've always voted democrat. It is overheard that these people will vote the same way this election. 

Should they be approached and try to be dissuaded or should they be left to their own conscious by the session?

Let's add something else. Let's say they have been approached and asked to not vote for the Democratic candidate and they do anyway. Discipline at that point? Would it be for being non-submissive, for voting for a pro-abortionist, or both?


----------



## sastark (May 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Should they be approached and try to be dissuaded or should they be left to their own conscious by the session?



Yes, they should be approached and lovingly admonished not to vote for a canidate that favors the murder of the innocent.



> Let's add something else. Let's say they have been approached and asked to not vote for the Democratic candidate and they do anyway. Discipline at that point? Would it be for being non-submissive, for voting for a pro-abortionist, or both?



I don't know the answer to this. My gut feeling is that they should be disciplined for voting pro-abortion, but how to work this out practically is a bit more complex.


----------



## JohnV (May 12, 2005)

But its not that easy. You can't discipline anyone for the way they vote; not only is that against the rule of conscience in the WCF, but it also goes against constitutional law. You can't discipline someone because they are not politically conscientious. 

They way someone votes, if they make it known, is indicative, and nothing more. Only on matters of life and doctrine may the church discipline anyone. So its just like Patrick says, its and issue thing, not political. If someone makes it a point to vote Democrat, with the currnent agenda that they have, I would begin to mistrust him concerning his conscientious support in various ministry-related areas. I wouldn't want a closet-pro-choice, or a closet pro gay-marriage mixed in with my serious efforts at the work I do for the gospel. What would matter the most to me would be whether or not the Spirit is blessing the work being done, and He won't bless it if there is an Achan amongst us. 

I'm not saying we should shun him, because that's another issue, I believe. I'm saying that this should be discouraged by our actions as much as by our attitudes; but done righteously, not as if we ourselves are righteous. This person's help is welcome, but he can't believe that God will bless both sides of the issue. 

After this it may well come to discipline, because he may not want to discipline himself. His lax attitude will bear bad fruit sooner or later, and it would be by that fruit that we would discipline him. 

I'm just thinking through this, out loud so to speak. These are my thoughts so far.

When it comes to political parties, I've dumped our Canadian parties already. Even the Christian Heritage Party doesn't impress me. But the problem I see is not that there is no political choice, but more that the way it is is just the way the people want it. Just look at the very recent developments in Canadian politics: the Liberals were falling out of favour because of their being implicated in the Sponsorship scandal; but then the fact that the moralist Conservatives would be the next best option scared eveyone back to supporting the Liberals. They would rather have a corrupt government than one that stands in the way of gay marriages. That's how the media seemed to portray the back-and-forth change in popularity recently. And I believe that is truly the way it is. Not that the Conservatives would be any more moral, but people are scared that those in the Conservative party who speak out against abortion and gay marriage may in fact be in the majority in that party. But everyone knows that politicians don't have the backbone to act on their own convictions; they do what they perceive the public wants. Because what they want more than anything else to to be in power, not a moral country, or even their own moral integrity. That's the power of the party system, and that' what runs politics. 

How did Walter Kronkite say it? I think it was, "That is way it is."


----------



## sastark (May 13, 2005)

John- If you were a Reformed pastor in Germany during World War 2, would you have served communion to active members of the Nazi party who were also members of your church?


----------



## JohnV (May 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> John- If you were a Reformed pastor in Germany during World War 2, would you have served communion to active members of the Nazi party who were also members of your church?



Seth:

In retrospect, no. But at the time before the war, or even at the start of it, people couldn't or wouldn't believe that the nazi party was as bad as we now know it was. Those atrocities were still in the future, an outcome of their gaining power, might, and no one to oppose them anymore. By then I would certainly oppose their participation in something so opposed to truth, godliness, justice, goodness, and anything else that Christianity lays claim to. Just by being a member one opposes his faith. 

It's easy to say that now. I feel like Marty in the Back to the Future series. 

Bringing it home to where we are now, I have my reservations about people who get all worked up about supporting a political party. Am I the only one who felt cheated by the anti-abortion lobbyists and the anti-gay-movement lobbyists? I feel they took the cause right out from under me, because they bacame more politically motivated than spiritually motivated; and that is just the wrong order. They just assumed that everyone with the name of Christian was morally good, and all we had to do was organize politically. So they held hands with Romanists, with Arminian Calvin cussers, with B'hais, and with anyone that would claim the Judeo-Christian ethic, and even those who made no claims at all except being opposed to abortion. What's wrong with that? Well, it misses the point. It's not a political ill; it's a moral ill, one rooted in personal guilt that won't be confessed. With all these groups doing what is right in their own minds, who are they to condemn those who do the same thing but for an immoral cause? Do we think the Spirit is going to drop everything and choose sides? We're the ones who have to drop everything and choose His side. And that's the real issue. 

So even people who are worked up about these movements I have questions about. Not that they're doing wrong, but rather that I don't trust them for spiritual leadership. So if someone were openly supporting the Liberal party in my church, yeah I think he would be suspect concerning his spiritual life.

[Edited on 5-13-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## Peter (May 13, 2005)

John, the way I see it, how you vote is both a matter of doctrine and life. People ought to decide who to vote for rationally, not anyone out of the blue w/o regard to their beliefs or qualifications. The decision to vote for or not for a candidate ought to based on whether he and his views are compatible with your beliefs. Further, the act of voting is a show of assent to the policies and the actions of the person as an officer. As Christians our voting must conform to the principles of biblical magistracy. A Christian who votes for a Roman Catholic or a Jew or an anti-Lifer is displaying aberrant doctrine and, considering the act of voting itself, unruly practice in life.


----------



## Puritanhead (May 13, 2005)

*GOP*

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=10908

They could at least do their homework before they get on their moral high-horse about the GOP being "God's Own Party" !?!?!?!?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 13, 2005)

Consistent with Peter's comments, I would offer the following excerpt from the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland:



> While fully entitled by the civil law to all the rights of membership in the governing society, Christians, because of their primary allegiance to Christ, ought not to avail themselves of the exercise of those rights when they conflict with His supremacy. In particular, Christians should vote only for candidates for political office who recognise the kingship of Jesus Christ by:-
> 
> (a) giving evidence of consistent Christian character;
> 
> ...


----------



## Larry Hughes (May 13, 2005)

John V. is right it is against constitutional law. No American is under obligation to reveal their voting record to any one for such is protected by the law of the land. Does the church then violate the law of the land? I understand that Christians owe singular allegiance to Christ alone. And someone may choose to reveal their voting record and that is a bit different. But in a practical outworking of this - how does the church go about doing it and itself remain lawful within the providential governing body?

I don't have an answer myself, just thinking out loud again.

ldh


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 13, 2005)

There is no provision in the US Constitution of which I am aware that requires confidentiality with respect to citizen voting practices.


----------



## Larry Hughes (May 13, 2005)

You are correct, I stand corrected. Problem solved.

I suppose, vote the lesser of two evils or third party.


----------



## twogunfighter (May 16, 2005)

If one disciplines for issue based votes, then those that vote Repub should be disciplined as well. They did not vote against abortion either. They voted for one that stated specifically that he would not tamper with the status quo. He stated that he would not reject any supreme court nominee that was pro-abortion. He did not in any way repudiate his Title X increases to Planned Parenthood. If you disciplined the Dems then you have to discipline the Repubs. Also a Dem voter could say that he was trying to vote for life by assuming that any Dem abortion spending would be more actively thwarted by Repubs that are opposing a Dem president. 

If, however, they state that they are specifically supporters of abortion and therefore they decided to vote for either candidate then I suppose that you could discipline.


----------



## JohnV (May 16, 2005)

Let me clarify, please. 

The normal rights of citizens of either the US or Canada allows a person to choose freely on his own, without coercion. This is fundamental to the democratic process (the Republican process too, I think  )

But that's not the real issue here. Whatever a person does, how he votes is only an indicator at best, but is not a sin itself. If a person votes for, say, the Liberal Party platform, which included incorporating a new definition of marriage, so as to include gay marriage into the Constitutional law of the country, then he may be brought up on charges of flagging in doctrine concerning the Biblical ruling on marriage, on homosexuality being repugnant to faith, and of supporting a consensus opposed to Christ and the Church. 

But he cannot be brought up on charges of how he voted. That is not a sin itself. The churches have guidelines concerning discipline; they don't have to expand on them, just dare to enforce them properly. At one time, I suppose, it was good and proper to vote Liberal, but now it is wrong to do so. What has changed? Certainly not God; He didn't change His mind that one time it was OK with Him to vote Liberal, but another time it is a sin. God does not change. Voting Liberal itself is not a sin. But voting in favour of the present Liberal platform is. Why, because it supports debauchery, villainy, and the worst of fornications. It is the supporting of these that is the sin, not whether one votes for a particular party.

There are many, you'd be surprised how many, that are unawares of the deeper things at stake in an election. By voting Liberal they do not mean at all to support the above list of profanities. They see in their candidate the support of other things, which they also feel convicted of. And they have an ingrained sense of duty to the democratic process which refuses them the option not to vote: not voting is a vote in favour of the majority vote. Their choices, according to the way they see things, are very limited, choosing, as has been suggested, between two or three evils; namely a vote for one party, a vote for another party, or not voting. For them the worst choice is not voting. These are ill-informed people, to be sure, but their sin is their willful ignorance, not that they voted or abstained. 

But a person has a right to vote, and he has no obligation to tell anyone how he voted. And if a church disciplines a person on how he voted, and not on the doctrine or life issues, then I would oppose that discipline. This does not negate what I said earlier, but merely narrows the point more. How a person votes is only a matter of a proof of the sin, not the sin itself.

Well, that's how I see it.

[Edited on 5-16-2005 by JohnV]


----------

