So, plenty of kerfuffle over the Baptist congregation that kicked out members who voted for John Kerry (the story is a bit more complex than that, but it's a fair assessment). I've seen the story in a number of places, most recently at SEB.
WAYNESVILLE, N.C. - Some in Pastor Chan Chandler's flock wish he had a little less zeal for the GOP. Members of the small East Waynesville Baptist Church say Chandler led an effort to kick out congregants who didn't support President Bush. Nine members were voted out at a Monday church meeting in this mountain town, about 120 miles west of Charlotte.
[...] The station also reported that 40 others in the 400-member congregation resigned in protest after Monday's vote.
During the presidential election last year, Chandler told the congregation that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic Sen. John Kerry should either leave the church or repent, said former member Lorene Sutton. Some church members left after Chandler made his ultimatum in October, Morris said.
A few thoughts (as gelled from commenting there):
Similarly, if it were a matter of a pastor kicking out congregants who were notorious whorers and drunkards, or who were KKK members, or who were running a child pr0n ring, I think it wouldn't be making the AP newswire, even if the issues are are (as I discuss below) fundamentally the same.
If that's the case, then one's moral beliefs must inform one's political vote. This gets beyond the "values" voting idea. How one believes about abortion, the death penalty, war, civil rights, care for the poor, homosexuality, adultery, tolerance, etc., all may (and probably should) impact how one votes.
If I think, for example, that abortion (to take just one prominent example) is the one, single, defining moral issue of our time, then it's likely a litmus test for how one votes. Indeed, if you think that abortion represents the wholesale slaughter of babies, it must be a litmus test for one's vote.
If that's the case, then how can one purport to be a moral teacher (as most churches do) without addressing such matters? And, as a practical matter, is there a significant difference between saying, "Abortion is a horrific evil, and we must act in our private and public lives to end it," and saying, "You need to get out there and vote against baby-killers," and "Candidate X supports abortion, so all good parishioners should vote against Candidate X, or else they're not good parishioners"? (Again, fill in "war" or the hot button issue of your choice.)
The call to political action by churches is often controversial (and, usually, the "controversy" varies based on what one believes about the particular call), but it's, frankly, necessary. What the proper line is, from either a religious or legal standpoint, I don't know.
Being an Episcopalian, I tend to err on the side of the Big Tent, and I note that, on the WWJD test, Christ spent a lot more time bringing people in than shutting people out. But he did condemn the unrepentant hypocrites, and he did tell people that he was there to divide, not necessarily to unite.
I think it's gauche, at the very least, and not the sort of environment I'd care to congregate in (so to speak), but I can see where they (or other churches that might argue similar course for their own reasons) are coming from, whether or not I agree with where they are going.
Filed under :: Elections 2004 :: Religion :: ZT & PC
I'm all for churches getting their political affiliations, if any, out in the open. But then, I'm also for pulling all their tax-exempt status' because it constitutes an enormous gov't subsidy for their dubious enterprise. Then let 'em say whatever the heck they want.
The idea behind tax exemptions for churches was twofold. First, it was meant to keep the state from using tax policy to intrude on religious practice (though it, conversely, forces the state to define what is a church and what is not). Second, as at least some measure of church funds usually go to various charitable "outreach" sorts of programs, it was thought that churches were doing what the government would have to do instead (and that to impose new tax requirements would seriously interfere with such charitable work, especially for "property-rich-cash-poor" churches).
It might be possible to get churches to somehow split up their charitable work from their non-charitable work (and, so, make the latter taxable -- unless your suggestion is that all non-profit charities be taxed as well), but, speaking for the church I belong to, that would in fact be a significant burden and distraction.
Still, it might be worth it to get the state further extricated from religion.
Dave said, "I strongly suspect that the cries of outrage (and support) would be somewhat different if the pastor had kicked out people who voted GOP/Bush."
Since it hasn't happened (and isn't bloody likely to happen) then the cries would be cries of amazement.
And, yeah, if the line is so fuzzy then dump the tax exemption across the board.