This is Life!: Revolutions Around the Cruciform Axis

I would support your opinion that the minister's motives were not political except for one thing: he did not expel those Christians for supporting abortion, but for supporting Democrats. It is possible to support the Democratic agenda and oppose abortion. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is pro-choice. According to the members who were expelled, Pastor Chandler did not state that he wished to expel them for supporting abortion; he stated his goal was to expel them for supporting Democrats. That smacks of a political, not moral, agenda.

I certainly admit that there are pro-life Democrats, but they are a minority without power in the party, and the party most explicitly and emphatically endorses abortion. My own personal view, however, is such that if I were confronted with a pro-choice Republican and a pro-life Democrat--all other important matters being equal, and these were the two best candidates under consideration--I would vote for the Democrat.

As to Pastor Chandler's motivations: I clearly said that my views were speculation. He denied his motivations were political--the only public comment he has made. I, for one, take him at his word, and offer my speculation how his actions could be something other than political.

It is true that those who've been excommunicated have come out and made comments on Pastor Chandler's actions and the motivation for those actions. While I am willing to give the ousted members the benefit of the doubt with regard to the events that have taken place, I am judiciously suspect of their interpretation of the pastor's motives and reasons. One thing that has yet to happen is for Pastor Chandler and his supporters to give their account of the events.

Until all sides have spoken, we only have partial glimpses of the truth. Everyone has been quick to crucify the good pastor, jumping on the intolerance bandwagon and attempting to shut down his church through IRS allegations. I find this incredibly, cynically hypocritical and just as much of a witchhunt as the pastor is accused of.

From what little I know, I will say as I said originally, that I find the pastor's actions bewildering and lacking in some good pastoral common sense. But he apparently didn't act alone and had the support, it appears, of his church board. In which case, this is probably a church with manifest problems and difficulties, and this was just one extremely unhealthy way such things came to fruition.

This is a church, and a pastor, that needs our prayers, not our condemnations and IRS allegations.

1) Nikki, I believe you misspoke when you stated "Harry Reid is pro-choice" -- actually, he is not, which you can verify for yourself here: http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Harry_Reid.htm. This was one of the reasons he was slow to be accepted by much of the Dem rank and file. But your wording suggests it was a typo as his pro-life stance supports your argument better.

2) Clifton, what happens if the pastor's story confirms what we've already heard? It's not like there's a great deal of debate about what happened at this point -- nobody who was there has yet disputed even the least point of the stories told so far, and it's not like he (and the other members of the congregation, for that matter) hasn't had the opportunity to rebut.

You make the assumption that the pastor is "good" because he is a pastor. I don't see that that's automatic. "had the support of his church board" -- read more; he brought in many new members (including many teens) who voted as he directed them to and who jeered those who were kicked out. Sounds more like a bully and his cronies than a deliberative body. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/8/183016/2432)

3a) Why does the church seize on abortion as an issue and ignore the death penalty, which GWB applied at a record pace while governor? Why does a "culture of life" include newsmaker Terry Schiavo but not the poor? (http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=480)

3b) Why do Republicans ignore the "95-10" proposals Democrats made recently in Congress (95% of abortions eliminated within 10 years -- a better rate than would be accomplished even if Roe v Wade were overturned)?

Tall Guy:

I've spoken already to the other issues surrounding the pastor's conduct.

As to my use of "good" with pastor . . . it's simply an expression, as in "the good doctor blah blah blah."

The rest of your questions and concerns are tangential to my point, so I need not address them here.

ThatTallGuy:

You are correct. I meant to type "pro-life" instead of "pro-choice."

Clifton:

In fact, the points you bring up tend to make me more convinced that it was a political manner. Don't you find it odd that he, his lawyer and his supporters have yet to defend his actions, but claim that it was all a misunderstanding? It has now been almost a week and Rev. Chandler has yet to tell his side of the story. The eleven who were expelled and the 44 who resigned in protest all appear to be telling the same story.

Rev. Chandler's actions (which, as we all know, tend to speak louder than words) smack of totalitarianism from the pulpit. Clifton, I apologize if it seems that I am berating you, but I don't understand why it is so difficult to condemn bad behavior when it occurs on the political right.

I enclosed "good" in quotes because you used the term as an expression, but you did make the assumption. But I remember Jim Bakker and other snake-oil salesmen and feel less certain.

I've known both good and less-good ministers, just as I've known both good and less-good doctors, software engineers, and restaurants. But bad doctors, SE's, and restaurants can all kill people... As the Bible tells me to do, I make no assumptions about their quality until I see their fruits. Egregious failures as religious leaders, to my mind, are those who preach hatred. I recall Jesus having a different message.

>I've already spoken to the other issues...

Yes, I read that, and found it similarly unsatisfying. ("All Christians were against abortion" -- in the same way that all good Catholics don't use birth control.) You seem to define your terms to suit yourself; while this is a blogger's prerogative, I consider myself a good Christian but I do not share your views.

Nikki:

In fact, in terms of the pastor's behaving in political ways, I have condemned that, quite explicitly. In terms of even his good intentions, I've also criticized what I think is his blatanly bad mishandling of the situation. And in terms of the congregation cheering when the excommunicants left, I've also criticized that. I'm not sure how else to satisfy you here. Perhaps a re-read of my posts will bring these things to light.

Tall Guy:

You seem to miss something here. The expression "the good pastor" is not objectively calling the pastor good. It's just an expression, like "damn yankees." No one expects the utterer of that epithet to really condemn to everlasting hellfire all those north of the Mason-Dixon. It's a literary expression and nothing more. Calm down and get over it.

As to your other contentions. It is just simply a manifest, objective and historical fact that all, and I do mean ALL, Christians condemned abortion prior to the twentieth century. This is not simply my definition. I've provided evidence--which frankly is just everywhere--to show that this is the stance of all Christians for the past nineteen hundred years. Oh, heck, I'll even give you a hundred years so as to factor in Darwin and the subsequent social Darwinists--until the nineteenth century. Can you prove otherwise?

As to whether or not you are a "good Christian," it is not for me to judge. I can say that if you accept the practice of abortion as morally legitimate, you cut yourself off from all of historic Christianity on this score. You're going it alone, and making up your own definitions to suit yourself.

As to whether "good Catholics" can use birth control--aside from the so-called "natural family planning method"--the Catholic Church has spoken clearly on that score, and I, being a non-Catholic, do not need to add my own opinion.