Bailes takes me to task for not listening to the pastor's sermon tapes:
One Chattablogger, who has been a sympathetic supporter of the embattled pastor (didn't this blogger hear the audio tapes of Rev. Chandler's sermons?!), explains how he too has been in similar circumstances as a minister.
But his link only takes me to an ABC News story on the fracas, and a Google search didn't turn up any audio of the actual sermon. So . . . let's go with what ABC News says (trusting, of course, their journalistic integrity not to edit the sermon content in such a way so as to promote one or another subjective side to the story).
ABC News, to which Bailes linked, provides excerpts from the sermon. ABC intros the pastor's remarks with:
Indeed, though some media reports have repeated Chandler's claim that this was all just a "misunderstanding," the full content of that sermon seems very clear.
Then ABC gives only a portion of the "full content":
"We have a society of preachers who are afraid to get up in the pulpit and speak the truth," Chandler said in the taped sermon. "There are people in the congregations, leaders--deacons, teachers, Sunday school teachers--people who pay their tithe and let the pastor know it very loudly, that tell the pastor he cannot say anything political. He can say that it's all right for you to support someone that does not support abortion. But you can't name names.""'You start naming names,'" Chandler said he was told, "'we're gonna ask you to leave.' " But that's a cop-out, "hiding behind the pulpit," Chandler claimed.
"We've been catering to Satan, catering to the enemy, we've not been making the stand that God wants us to make," he said. Then he said Kerry voters need to repent or resign.
He said in the sermon that he doesn't care if he offends anyone: "I want to make the Who's Who list in heaven, not yours." Later in the sermon he said, "If you're going to be offended today, take it up with the most high. I am merely the spokesperson. Don't kill the messenger."
Directing his comments to Kerry supporters seated in the pews, Chandler asked: "Why do you support an unbeliever over a man who says, 'This is the day when I saved and now my life changed'? Why do you support an unbeliever over a believer? Let me see, do I support a Christian or a non-Christian? Do I support someone who kills babies or I support someone who says, 'Let's let 'em live.' Do I support someone who says, 'Let's marry the gays,' or someone who says, 'Let's uphold God's law and not'?"
Now, color me naive, but it seems pretty darn clear what the impetus is for Pastor Chandler's actions, and it's not party affiliation per se. It's two fundamental Christian beliefs: that the practice of abortion and homosexual behavior are sins. On abortion, the differences between the parties and the candidates are clear. On homosexual behavior, the differences are not so clear, though I suppose the pastor would point out President Bush's tepid support of a marriage amendment over against Kerry's opposition to such an amendment. (Though neither candidate opposed civil unions, and both were opposed to calling same sex unions "marriage" in the same way heterosexual unions are marriage.)
In other words, Pastor Chandler's story sticks: The issue is about abortion and other Christian moral matters. The pastor apparently thinks that one cannot uphold Christian beliefs and morals and at the same time vote for the Democratic party candidates, but that one can uphold Christian beliefs and morals and at the same time vote for the Republican party candidates, or at least the ones who oppose abortion and homosexual behavior and same sex unions.
Now, I'm not saying I agree with the pastor's logic. Nor do I agree with his characterization of Kerry as a non-Christian over against Bush as a Christian (though I understand Baptists have a problem accepting Roman Catholics as Christians--I have no such issue). In fact, I never have said that I agree with the pastor's logic. I do believe that for me to vote for a Democratic party candidate the candidate would first have to oppose certain Democratic party platform items (such as abortion), which candidate would be a rarity to be sure. But if a Democratic candidate presented himself or herself as an articulate advocate (with practical evidence in voting record and political activity) of Christian beliefs and morals, I could in good conscience--and especially if the other candidates held views in opposition to Christian beliefs and morals--endorse such a candidate.
In other words, I think Pastor Chandler paints with too broad a brush when applying his beliefs and morals to the political arena.
That being said, Kerry did fit his criticisms, and he was justified in calling his flock to oppose Kerry on the basis of Christian beliefs and morals. Similarly, on the same basis, he could encourage his flock to vote for Bush.
As the ABC News story points out: Chandler did nothing different than did certain progressivist churches when they endorsed Kerry . . . on the basis of their beliefs and morals.
Last year, many black preachers endorsed Kerry in churches across the country."To bring our country out of despair, despondency and disgust, God has a John Kerry," the Rev. Gaston E. Smith said last October at Friendship Missionary Baptist Church in Miami.
In Philadelphia, right after a pro-Kerry appearance by fellow Massachusetts Democrat Sen. Edward Kennedy, the Rev. Ernest C. Morris Sr. told about 1,500 worshippers, "I can't tell you who to vote for, but I can tell you what my mama told me last week: 'Stay out of the bushes.' "
And in Cincinnati, Temple African Methodist Episcopal Church Pastor Donald H. Jordan Sr. said of Kerry's running mate, former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., "I'm not worried about the law. I'm asking you to support him."
If Christian ministers and pastors, Jewish rabbis, and Muslim imams, cannot provide their flocks with reasoned arguments applying their respective beliefs to the political arena, then we might as well just tear up the first amendment. Separation of church and state does not mean muzzling the church.
Much as the whiny progressivists all up in arms over Pastor Chandler might like to think so.
They're hypocrites all. I sure don't hear the whines when the Dems visit their churches and stump from their pulpits. And if that isn't endorsing a particular candidate, I've got a bridge I'd like you to buy.
Posted by Clifton at May 11, 2005 08:45 AM | TrackBackOn this post, I would somewhat agree with you. I think all candidates should refrain from visiting churches to pander to their electorate; this fuzzes the line between church and state entirely too much. I feel NO pastor should encourage his flock to vote for a particular candidate, especially not from the pulpit. Any church whose pastor does this should immediately have its tax exemption revoked. Voting adults should be able to make up their own minds who they want to support based on their personal system of beliefs. Churches should not be used as political tools; I believe it is an abomination.
Posted by: Nikki at May 11, 2005 11:41 AMNikki:
Indeed, voting adults should be able to make up their minds. I completely agree with you.
But how is a priest/pastor/minister/rabbi/imam who provides spiritual guidance from "the pulpit" relevant to political decisions--which necessitates at times quite specific applications--doing anything differently than media pundits in the press do all day every day from far more powerful positions of influence? If we prohibit the free speech of religious leaders in terms of public endorsement of a candidate, then we ought also do so for the press.
The difference, of course, is that the press "pay" for their privilege of telling people what to think (and that is precisely what they do; they are not just "letting people make up their minds") by paying taxes. Churches can publicly endorse whomever they choose--if they're willing to pay for their privilege via taxes.
On the other hand, the reason for tax-exempt status for churches is that they provide a tangible and parallel benefit to society--care for the poor, soup kitches, counselling, tutoring, education, etc., etc., etc.--alongside the government, and the citizenry has seen fit to relieve them of the heavy burden of taxation so as to more easily provide those tangible societal benefits.
I have yet to see a consistent outreach to the poor from any of the media. Oh, sure they bloviate endlessly about the poor. But actually shaking grimy hands, hugging smelly, lice-ridden bums, and otherwise embracing the down-and-out . . . no, I've never seen Katie, Judy, or Wolf or any of those folks do anything like that in their capacity as "newspersons."
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at May 11, 2005 11:56 AMClifton, the issue here is not about Pastor Chandler's personal support for Bush. I see nothing wrong with that. Or even his encouraging people to vote for Bush from the pulpit--although that gets pretty sketchy, and I don't think it's inappropriate for the IRS to look into that.
The problem comes when Chandler violates the longstanding Baptist emphasis on personal responsibility in these issues. In the past 25 years, the SBC has taken a militaristic-federal approach to all sorts of personal issues, and the problem starts at the highest levels of the Convention. Iron-fisted presidents have been exerting their influence down into parishes, seminaries, and into members' personal lives by defining "official" stances on issues once left to individual consciences.
Abortion and gay rights are two of these notable matters. It is every Christian's right to make up his or her own mind about stuff like this--and it's every pastor's right to advise parishoners about these issues. But Pastor Chandler's mistake was to actually judge the state of the souls of those who held different opinions--and then to vote them out of membership. That is completely indefensible by tradition or the bylaws of the church. But, like I said, it's the logical end of the tyranny currently plaguing the SBC: heavy-handed conservatives who feel they have the right to demand conformity in non-dogmatic issues from their members.
You seem to feel like abortion and gay rights are dogmatic issues that have very clear answers; but most people--most Christians--don't feel the same way.
Posted by: Tyler Grisham at May 11, 2005 04:20 PMTyler:
In internal Baptist denominational terms, I certainly can see how the pastor's actions do, indeed, violate his church's traditions. Since I come from a hierarchically ordered Church (Orthodox), I see no substantive problems with his direction per se, though clearly the way he handled it is a problem.
As to abortion and same sex behaviors (I'm NOT speaking in terms of rights, but in terms of actions and practice) in point of fact the Christian belief on these things is straightforward and clear. There is an undeniable abundance of biblical, historical, traditional, canonical and dogmatic support for this.
However, that many Christians feel or think differently, is not my concern. I'm concerned with the truth. Their feelings and opinions don't enter into it. (Except from a pastoral point of view, which does not change the truth, though it may change how it is I would minister to them were I in such a position.)
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at May 11, 2005 04:30 PMPeople need to understand that the tax-exemption granted to churches is not a favor that the government graciously offers to religious people, it is an integral part of our polity ever since the founding of our country. The government cannot hold the threat of revoking the tax-exemption like a sword of Damocles over the churches to keep them in line (although I don't doubt they may try).
Posted by: Nephon at May 12, 2005 06:23 PMIf we prohibit the free speech of religious leaders in terms of public endorsement of a candidate, then we ought also do so for the press.
You might be surprised to know that I agree with you on this statement as well. I believe the news should report the facts with no hint of bias; present the truth and let the people make up their own minds no matter how much it helps or hurts.
However, I neither like nor trust any pastor who feels the need to counsel me on politics. In fact, I neither like nor trust any church that feels the need to engage in politics. There is plenty of work here on earth for God's people--the homeless need shelter, the hungry need food, the naked need clothing. So much could be accomplished if Christians focused more on outreach and healing ministry than the doings of Washington. Power is a corrupting influence; we have already seen its results in both the Schiavo matter and the "nuclear option" which threatens to plunge our Congress into a constitutional crisis. Drs. Dobson, Falwell, et.al. would be better representatives of Christianity if they would turn their energies into pressuring Congress to help the less fortunate than in attempting to enforce their moral values on the rest of the nation.
Aren't we supposed to put our trust in the Lord that He will make all things right?
Posted by: Nikki at May 12, 2005 07:06 PM