Church Discipline of Non-Bush Voters

Um...kicked out for politics?  Ousted for political views?  Seriously?

I just knew this would come as a result.

UPDATE (5.10.05): I really hoped there wouldn't be a single person who would dare try to explain away or defend such ecclesi-elastical sillyness.  My hopes were unrealized.

UPDATE (5.11.05): Okay, something I'm not surprised to see.  The pastor resigns.

Comments

[Bob Robinson]

Thanks for the heads-up on the Biblical Recorder article. I added a comment on my blog concerning it.

[jvpastor]

I want one with a picture of Bush that says: "I am the WMD!"

[adam]

i'm not sure what's more "sad." the fact that they were excommunicated or that the 9 are now pursuing legal action against their brothers/sisters in christ.

[Steve McCoy]

Check this out.

[Matt]

Steve: I saw that BP article as well. So I wonder is the issue here GWB or is it abortion? Quite frankly, I'm not opposed to excommunication over the issue, but I would think it needs to be handled with serious care. I don't think that is what happened here. Is Owens suggesting that the ousted members were somehow belligerent in their behavior or that the pastor can up and kick someone out with little warning? I'm confused, and either way, this is a PR nightmare.

[Steve McCoy]

As best I can tell (I may blog on the BP thing later), I think it's about how a vote for Kerry is a vote for abortion, and therefore should lead to discipline. I think that's a crock. Would you agree Matt, if I have read it correctly?

[Matt]

Yeah. I've stated my objections to liberalism before, and I've always cited the Touchstone articles about the Democrat Party's stance on a lot of matters, BUT I don't believe that a vote is worth discipline. So yep, I agree.

[Darren Moore]

I've posted twice today on this. The first is a bit of explanation about the law with respect to polcitical campaign intervention by 501(c)(3)'s (I teach a class on this) and the second is my disappointment with the whole situation. I had considered not saying anything but was compelled to write those posts after seeing the article you just posted by the professor at Southeastern. Thanks for bringing this to light.

[Steve McCoy]

Honestly, I'm not concerned with whether this pastor broke tax law, or violated some tax exempt status, whatever. If a situation comes up where I feel it's biblical to speak out, and that breaks our tax exempt agreements with the US govt, I'll do it in a heartbeat. But I don't think this guy was being biblical. I think he messed up.

I'm a young pastor too, and he must be feeling all sorts of crazy things right now. I encourage him to now respond biblically and realize where he was wrong and correct it.

I'll check out your posts Darren. Thanks.

[Rick Bennett]

Of course I have been commenting on this and posting. However, some of the best stuff out there is on Daily Kos (www.dailykos.com).

I will warn any potential readers that it is from a non-Republican pov. It is also well invesestigated. he actually interviewed more members and has some scoop I have seen nowhere else.

He is very trustworthy on this issue. You will have to scroll down since he is an active blogger, but it is worth it (he even has scoop on the excommunicating vote).

[Darren Moore]

I understand where you're coming from Steve. I guess I wonder (and I'm not a pastor) at what point it would ever be biblical to tell your congregants whom to vote for in an election. I can see where a church would take a stand, for example, against abortion, but that's okay even under the tax law limitations. I'm not even sure dis-fellowshipping individuals for supporting abortion (again as the current example) would be such a big issue. I really think this pastor's mistake came in October 2004. I think pastors (and the church) absolutely need to have a clear and loud voice on morality and conduct, but picking one candidate (in my opinion even one party) can't cover every moral issue. I agree with you that now would be the time to seek reconciliation beginning with owning up to a mistake. Thanks again for your blog. I enjoy the insights you bring.

[Wes]

I just read Mohler's blog on this topic (posted Thurs. May 12)
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?cal=go&adate=5%2F12%2F2005

It seems likely the pastor in NC overreacted, but where do you eventually draw the line with the conflict between a church's doctrinal statement and the political actions of its members? Mohler mentions the example of Germans, some of which professed to be Christians, voting for Hitler in the 1930s or the hypothetical case of a Christian found to be voting for David Duke (a leader in the KKK who has run for political office). I agree with Mohler that these two are cases for church discipline, but where is the line?

I also realize that the sinfulness of abortion and homosexuality aren't undisputed among professing evangelicals, so they aren't as clear-cut as these other extreme cases. But there may come a time in the future when churches will rightly need to call members to repent for their known political activities or be expelled from the fellowship.

[Joe Thorn]

What if a church believes in pacifism? They might argue voting for Bush was a vote for the murder of Iraqis. Would they be in the rght to excommunicate unrepent, Bush voters?

[Wes]

Joe,
And the church would be pacifist if they only accept the teachings of Christ in the Gospels. So that is a likely case.

[Joe Thorn]

Thanks for the well thought out response brother. It's helpful for me on my journey.

[Steve McCoy]

Wes, I don't know where the line is because it will involve (typically) many factors. I don't think this case in NC is anywhere near the line, however.

Also, there have been and still are many Christians who are pacifists who believe the whole Bible to be authoritative. Your claim about pacifists only accepting the gospels just isn't accurate, and you completely missed the fact that Joe made an excellent point.

The best known Christian pacifists (that I know of) are Anabaptists, like the Mennonites and Amish. But there are many individual Christian pacifists as well who love all of Scripture, including at least one current professor at SBTS.

[Wes]

Joe,
I apologize for being a smart-alleck.

Steve,
I was not claiming that the ONLY pacifists are those who only accept the teachings of Christ. However, if one does only accept the teachings of Christ, then he/she would likely be a pacifist. And there are many people in this group. Also, because of Matthew 18, it is possible that this group or church would believe in church discipline.

[Steve McCoy]

Wes, I still don't understand what this has to do with Joe's point or this post. I think it's a valid point that pacifists might see all this in the opposite sense. Or we make it less controversial by saying that a vote for Democrats is typically a vote to help the poor while a vote for Republicans is a vote to help the rich.

I think that's a poor view of political parties and their politics, but those claims could be made and on paper they may be correct enough to make this issue more squishy.