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

[gb93433]

Jesus never caleed any of his disciples to be conservative but radical.

Some of the most liberal folks I have met call themselves conservative. They talk a good game when they are in church but rely on their "holy spirit" in the form of a man or program or excuses.

The conservative sits in church and warms pews.
The radical knows God is alive and is with him.

The conservative relies on mans wisdom.
The radical relies on God.

The conservative looks at his own weaknesses and is afraid.
The radical looks at Jesus and is bold.

The conservative knows the answers.
The radical knows God who gives the answers.

The conservative hides in fear.
The radical is as bold as a lion.

The conservative is conservative in evangelism.
The radical is radical in evangelism.

The conservative is known for his conservatism.
The radical is known for his radical God.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by Dragoon68:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
Too bad this congregation did not have the privilege of firing this "pastor." I would have joined this church just so I could vote him out.

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.

 

[Craigbythesea]

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?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Liberal Politics = Liberal giving to others in accord a literal teaching of the Bible.

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.

 

[Jeffrey H]

Too bad this congregation did not have the privilege of firing this "pastor." I would have joined this church just so I could vote him out.

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.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
I don't think a pastor has the right to limit membership based on which political party a person votes for.

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.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Jeffrey H:
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.

The Baptist Press and Associated Baptist Press reported the same thing. I think the NY Times did the best job of reporting both sides though.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Scott J:
I grew up 35 miles from Waynesville. My family goes back at least 7 generations in the mountains of western NC... I am offended at your insenuations. KKK? Sure preach against such ignorant non-sense... but an "area of hate"? I don't think so... and since I have relatives in the area to include Waynesville, I recognize your generalization as absolutely and profoundly "ignorant" of the majority of those people.

Are you saying those problems do not exist there?

Certainly I don’t think everyone in the area is like that. I am sure there are growing Christians there as there are everywhere. What an area stands for does not always represent the godliest folks but the worst of people.

The information I got was from a preacher friend of mine not too far away from that area. He also stated to me that black people in the area were afraid to live there. So you can correct me if the information he gave me is wrong.

Another friend of mine shortly after our college days went to work in that area in a church and told of the time he took a stance against that kind of discrimination and later that night was met with a gun.

A black man I worked for grew up in the south and his family fled the area and changed their last name and moved the NY.

While I was in seminary some of the professors and students I knew warned me of that kind of thing in particular areas of the south. NC consistently being labeled as the worst. A friend of mine was a youth pastor in NC and led a young black youth to Christ and invited the young man to church and the deacons would not let the youth in the door. This was in 1995! If it is not a problem then why did the SBC speak out against it recently and apologize to the black people?

I have lived all over the world and certain areas of the US have quite a reputation in other parts of the US and the world. Even when I was in Finland I met a man who had lived in NC and did not have anything nice to say about the prejudice in that area. He mentioned that many of the people he met were nice but was shocked at the prejudice.

It is possible I have met all the wrong people? It’s possible.

My point is that it is often easy to point the finger somewhere else and we can little to change someone else while at the same time there are plenty of problems in our own backyard. The problem in that church goes much deeper than politics. For the pastor and church members to get a lawyer says something about their maturity and obedience to scripture. Some of those had been members over 40 years of the same church and got a lawyer! Where was Christ in their disagreement.

 

[Bro. James Reed]

My point is that it is often easy to point the finger somewhere else and we can little to change someone else while at the same time there are plenty of problems in our own backyard.

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.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:
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.

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.

Where? I would like to know. I wouldn't doubt they are here. I have only been in IA a few months and I have not met any yet and I have never once heard such talk in the church either. The Sunday Schol class I attend has people from all over the world. They are employed here.

If it is not a problem in the south then why did the SBC take a stand on it and apologize recently.

Why would I have been told of the problem places to avoid when a student at SWBTS by both professors and students. I was from the west coast and had never heard such talk before in the church.

It was about 10 years ago when I left Houston and was teaching a Sunday School class and one of the deacons in the church made the comments, "Do you know why there is so much sin in Louisiana? It's because the blacks and whites married each other." Of course you can imagine my response!

I worked in Houston and lived near the heights for a few years and did like living there. I did find it to be much better than what I found outside of Houston but was stunned when the KKK came to Vidar in about 1992. When I worked in Austin I was told to never hire a black man as a salesman for the company. I was in middle management at the time and worked for the largest company in the US in its field at the time. after I graduate from college I worked for a black man and found him to be excellent. We went to the same church too. One time I asked him why he left Alabama where he grew up. He beagn to tell me of the racism his family experienced in Alabama and how his family moved and changed their last name because of that. In 1985 he was building a Moose Lodge in CA. Some pictures were taken of the ground breaking ceremonyand sent to the headquarters in MO. Originally the headquarters gave them enough money for the excavation and concrete. When it came time to request some more money the local Moose Lodge was denied from the headquarters because a black man was the general contractor.

I can assure you I lived not very far from you for several years and heard much small racist talk in the church by church members. It exists. You may not be as sensitive to it as me because perhaps you have heard it all your life. I had hired men who had succumbed to the idea that they would be the white mans servant. They had been told that growing up. I first noticed that by the way they apporached me. I was shoicked to hear what they ahd to say when I noticed that.

I spoke with a young black lady here in IA a few days ago in the town where I live. She told me she has lived in Iowa all her life and has never once ever received any kind of discriomination.

All I know is what I heard and what others say outside of the south. I have lived all over the world and I heard the same talk about the south.

Glad to hear it is getting cleaned up all over. It should never be tolerated in any church anywhere.

As far as the problems here I do say something as I find out about them.

 

[Bro. James Reed]

KKK of Iowa

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Good riddance to bad rubbish, as the saying goes.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:
KKK of Iowa

I didn't find any reference to a location in Iowa. The only adress they gave was in Kentucky.
IKA
P.O. BOX 177
Dawson Springs, KY 42408
USA

I have never once heard their name mentioned since I have lived in Iowa. So I wouldn't know where to find them.

If you go to http://www.kkkk.net/index1.html you can see the states they are supposedly located in.

#1 on their doctrinal statement is 1) Because it is a Christian organization! Really!!

They are of their father the Devil.

 

[Bro. James Reed]

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.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:
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.

I understand what you mean. I am around Muslims and Hindus a lot and have not seen Osama in them. Those I know despise him.

Many of them are working in manufacturing because we are not training the people here. So we are bringing them from other countries.

 

[Bible-boy]

Is there more to the story?

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

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by Bible-boy:
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.

 

[Bible-boy]

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.

 

[GeneMBridges]

XVII. Religious Liberty

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.

Genesis 1:27; 2:7; Matthew 6:6-7, 24; 16:26; 22:21; John 8:36; Acts 4:19-20; Romans 6:1-2; 13:1-7; Galatians 5:1,13; Philippians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:1-2; James 4:12; 1 Peter 2:12-17; 3:11-17; 4:12-19.

-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.

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by GeneMBridges:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> XVII. Religious Liberty

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.

Genesis 1:27; 2:7; Matthew 6:6-7, 24; 16:26; 22:21; John 8:36; Acts 4:19-20; Romans 6:1-2; 13:1-7; Galatians 5:1,13; Philippians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:1-2; James 4:12; 1 Peter 2:12-17; 3:11-17; 4:12-19.

-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.