Embattled N.C. pastor resigns, says he was misunderstood

Why?

Patrick </font>[/QUOTE]I don't think a pastor has the right to limit membership based on which political party a person votes for.

 

How about which brand of deodorant they use?

 

There is no biblical mandate for buying votes with tax payer dollars.

Liberal Politics = liberal giving of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY... quite often one who votes for such is themselves a recipient. It isn't to far off to plainly call it the politics of envy.

Envy is a sin... and so is inciting someone to envy.

 

This general attitude is why so many pastors leave the ministry.

Keep in mind that liberal-biased media outlets reported this story. Why so much attention on a small 100 member congregation?? Do we have all the facts? Probably not.

 

I can agree, if we mean scriptural right. But doesn't a church have the right, in this country, to determine its own polity?

I had hoped to see some of those who disagree with Chandler's methods and theology support the right of Chandler and the East Waynesville Baptist Church to determine its own membership criteria, qualifications for leadership, and doctrinal positions. Part of defending soul liberty and freedom of religion is defending it for those with whom we disagree, sometimes even vigorously. While Baptists have ever stood for an individual's right to choose his or her own beliefs, that stance has never meant that a local Baptist congregation is bound to assent to or approve of those beliefs. And, part of freedom of religion is a church's ability to determine its own membership criteria. If they cannot, they are not free in that area.

When I first read the story, my initial reaction was that Chandler was a little dictator, and that he was inserting too much of his political views into and will over the church. While subsequent information will show that may or may not be true, I still support a church's right to determine its own membership criteria, qualifications for leadership, and doctrinal positions. I don't support the position of pastoral dictatorship, but I support the right of churches to function that way if they so choose. Anyone who is in such a church is there by his or her own choice. They are free to leave and go somewhere else. I don't believe that Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons or a host of other denominations are anywhere near scriptural and right. But I support their freedom to determine what they believe, who may teach & lead in their churches, and who will be members of it. I suspect if some of us joined one of those groups and continued to teach and promote Baptist doctrine, we would be tossed out on our ear – and rightly so. You may think what Chandler did is "not Baptist doctrine". But consider what one poster said, "there is no legal requirement anywhere that says 'to call your church Baptist you must...'" What a local Baptist church is and believes is what that local Baptist church determines what it is and believes (which could be very far from either right or "Baptist").

I hope that those who oppose the initial action of Chan Chandler and the East Waynesville Baptist Church and charge a violation of Baptist principles will take a deeper look at the full sweep of the ideas of soul liberty and freedom of religion. Perhaps your opinion violates them somewhat too. We don't have to support what was done – just their right to do it.

 

Agreed, yet you consistently bash the south with talks of racism. I'll guarantee you that there are as many, if not more, racists in your neck of the woods than there are down in mine.

I don't know how many times now I've read your story about the black guy being banned from the church.

We all know about.

If things are so bad down here, perhaps you would care to share with us why the race riots over the past 40 or so years have taken place in areas outside of the south.

I, for one, am tired of you telling us southerners how bad things are down here when you have the same problems as we in your area.

This might be a shock to you, but racism exists in places besides the south.

How about you take your own advice and start fixing problems in your backyard before getting on your high horse and telling us to fix ours.

 

KKK of Iowa

 

Good riddance to bad rubbish, as the saying goes.

 

It gives you Kentucky because that is their International HQ. (I suppose they have chapters in Mexico, Nigeria, etc, etc.)

One of their "realms", or chapters, is in Iowa.

I agree with what Terry said.

They are about as Christian as Osama bin Laden.

Did you read their enrollment application?

One of the qualifications is that you can not now, nor have been, of the Jewish faith.

That leaves out Christ and his apostles right there.

They hold such high srandards of "Christianity" that even Jesus Christ himself isn't good enough to be a member.

They really are dispicable.

All that said though, they are about as big of a threat to people in America as Greenpeace.

They are both nuicances who advocate, even if privately, the use of violence to get their way, but I am much more worried about my house being a Muslim terrorist target than I am that the KKK can do much damage to anything.

Of course, I really don't need to "go after" them because these groups are already highly scrutinized and put under a microscope, if you will, by the federal, state, and local authorities.

As for your mentioning Vidor again, all I can say, as I did on another thread, that is like taking a sample from San Francisco and assuming that all of California or the west cosast is gay. Of course, that sample could only be taken if, like Vidor, San Francisco had a population of 12,000.

I hear that Los Angeles has quite a few police shootings and riots, so that obviously means that Los Angeles is a town of racists and California is a hotbed for racism.

 

Is there more to the story?

Link to an article by one of Chan's SEBTS Professors

 

The bottom line is that politics should NEVER take the place of the Bible in the pulpit.

 

I'm not saying that I agree with how he did what he did. However, I do maintain that we ought to be calling our church members to live out their Christian beliefs and teaching them that those Christian beliefs ought to impact and influence every aspect of our lives including (but not limited to) who we elect to represent us in our government.

 

-BFM 2000

What is so unclear about this? If we are going to affirm a confession of faith, then we need to uphold it... all of it.

 

-BFM 2000

What is so unclear about this? If we are going to affirm a confession of faith, then we need to uphold it... all of it. </font>[/QUOTE]I believe that the part you have in bold is saying that the church should not resort to or rely upon the power of the Civil court to carry out its (the church's) work. Likewise, we do not rely upon the magistrate to enforce our religious beliefs upon the peolpe living within its (the magistrate's) jurisdiction. However, that does not mean that we as Christians should not be concerned with who represents us within the government.