This is Life!: Revolutions Around the Cruciform Axis

Can't You See It? The Vast Radical Religious Right Conspiracy Is Happening Right Before Our Eyes!!!

Daily Kos, or rather one of the contributors over at DK, as is not unusual for the DK folks, is hysterical again. This time georgia10's on a rant (and here) about a North Carolina Baptist Church that purportedly excommunicated some of its members (with a few dozen others resigning in protest) over their refusal to disassociate themselves from the Democratic Party, and for not voting for Bush in the last election.

Unfortunately the video clip (text of the sound byte is here) that accompanies the post is short on details and long on assumptions. Seems everyone thinks this is a political move, though they do mention the church pastor, Chan Chandler, denies it was political. Of course the news piece ends with the famous non-accusation accusation: "It's unclear whether the church by-laws were followed."

Unfortunately, I cannot dig up any more information online, so exactly what happened and how it happened remains unclear.

The DK folks, of course, see in this a sinister cabal to establish a theocracy in the U.S. (On that bit of paranoid nonsense, see the opinion piece here.)

I do, unsurprisingly to my readers I'm sure, find it very hard to believe that this was about politics. Though DK and other liberal/progressive folks may find this hard to believe, Christians do oppose abortion, as all Christians did, and were obligated by their faith to do, until the twentieth century. So, when the Democratic Party Platform (pdf file) says:

Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

liberal/progressives should understand that this is not a political issue at the core, though it has political application and implications. This, of course, is one major issue, among other possible issues, that would legitimately bar a Christian from voting for a Democratic candidate who espoused this party's platform. So, if the pastor says this was not politically motivated, I believe him. This was about matters of Christian faith.

By the way, compare this with the Republican Party platform (pdf), especially p. 84 under the heading "Promoting a Culture of Life."

As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

(There are, of course, other political parties that reject abortion, too. Go here, for further details.)

Now, four things before I speak more specifically about what Pastor Chandler has done: 1. The Democratic Party Platform's stance with regard to abortion is of a serious enough nature (see the link above about the historic Christian belief) to legitimately keep a Christian from voting for any Democratic candidate who espouses the practice of abortion, 2. One's voting for a particular candidate, should not be simply limited to considerations about a single issue, however serious is that issue, 3. Though all political parties have their sins and evils, there is no moral equivalence between the seriousness of the practice of abortion and, by way of example, disagreement over prudential matters as how best to care for the poor, itself also a Christian obligation, and 4. If a Republican, Libertarian, Green, Reform or any other party candidate espouses the practice of abortion, one can hardly be excused for voting for that candidate simply because that candidate "wasn't Democratic." But, on the matter of abortion, the Democratic Party's position is to endorse it while the Republican Party's position is to reject it. And that is extremely significant.

Now, this is not a political rant, per se. Rather, I'm trying to offer what I think is a much more plausible account, than that it was politically motivated, as to why this pastor took this step with his church members. I, myself, do not think it was politically motivated, but was doctrinally motivated.

The fact is, though, I don't know. The pastor hasn't made any specific comments other than to deny the political nature of his actions. I take him at his word, and offer what I think might be a plausible account of what his motivations might have been, and a bare bones argument for its coherence.

That being said, though, I've got some questions for the good pastor. Did you follow the steps of Matthew 18 and go speak to your brothers one on one, and more than once? Did you take this matter before the "elders" (or what constitutes your pastoral or governing board of your congregation or region)? Did you first seek out the counsel of, and continue in conversation with, an older, wiser and holy pastor (or more than one)? Was it determined that this step was more conducive to repentance and restoration of fellowship with those excommunicated than an otherwise less dramatic disciplinary step? Did you document all the steps in these processes for the unfortunately very real possibility that you and/or your governing board and denomination would be sued?

Myself, based on the extremely sketchy details, I think this is a badly handled pastoral matter. If the pastor is only 31, well, this may well be a case of inexperience and lack of prudence. I also think it could well have extremely bad legal and financial consequences for the congregation.

And if it is true that a majority of congregants did indeed clap when these excommunicated members left, then the pastor has a whole lot more to worry about than legal and financial burdens. This may well be a church with major heart disease.

[DK links above via Micah via Tripp via email.]

Posted by Clifton at May 6, 2005 11:41 AM | TrackBack