Chan Chandler’s fall from grace

May 11, 2005

The Rev. Chan Chandler, who endorsed Bush from his pulpit last fall and purged his church of Democrats just over a week ago, has resigned. I’m wondering, however, what exactly prompted his departure.

A Baptist preacher accused of running out nine congregants who disagreed with his Republican politics resigned Tuesday, two days after calling the issue “a great misunderstanding.”

Speaking from the pulpit during a meeting at East Waynesville Baptist Church, the Rev. Chan Chandler told church members that it would “cause more hurt for me and my family” if he stayed.

“I am resigning with gratitude in my heart for all of you, particularly those of you who love me and my family,” Chandler said, adding that the dispute was rooted in his strong feelings about abortion.

Last week, when congregants said Chandler had divided the congregation and had to go, the pastor rejected any talk of resignation. What changed his mind? It wasn’t his boss — the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina said a pastor has every right to disallow memberships. So if it wasn’t his congregation and it wasn’t his church’s superiors, who (or what) convinced Chandler to resign?

I have a hunch this had something to do with it.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today called on the Internal Revenue Service to investigate a North Carolina church whose pastor garnered national headlines after he expelled several Democrats from the congregation. Recent actions by Pastor Chan Chandler of the East Waynesville Baptist Church in Waynesville, N.C., are merely indicative of a larger pattern of partisan political activity at the church, Americans United asserts.

Several newspapers and television stations have reported that on Oct. 3, 2004, Chandler told his congregation, “If you vote for John Kerry, you need to repent or resign.” Church members told the media that prior to the election, Chandler frequently endorsed President George W. Bush from the pulpit and attacked Kerry.

“Pastor Chandler seems to have confused his church with a Republican Party caucus meeting,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “It’s time for the IRS to give him a swift reminder of the laws of the land.”

Dividing a church along partisan lines will get a pastor criticized; putting the church’s tax-exempt status in jeopardy will get a pastor forced from his job.

This pastor did not preach ‘inclusiveness,’ he did not preach ‘love’ as Jesus did. He has no business being a man of the cloth. Maybe he was born 900 years too late. He could have been part of the Inquisition and rid Europe of the peaceful Cathars.

  • If he could only have held out for a few weeks, congress would have bailed him out with that “Politicizing from the Pulpit is Okay Now” thingy they’re trying to pass. I’m sure Tony Perkins has some openings though.

  • As I understand it, this guy was a fairly new young pastor who tried to oust long term church members – even someone who had served as a deacon for several decades.

    I am really amused by this. If you know anything about southern churches, you know that splits have occured over what kind of jello to serve, let alone trying to throw out people who built the church. The right Rev Chandler is a flaming idiot.

  • Is it possible he left before an IRS investigation revealed he’d been secretly under contract from the Department of Education as a paid consultant to spread of the word about how wonderful our Glorious Leader is? In these crazy times, who would even be surprised if it were true?

  • Is it possible he left before an IRS investigation revealed he’d been secretly under contract from the Department of Education as a paid consultant to spread of the word about how wonderful our Glorious Leader is?

    You know, I never would have thought of that one….

  • You people honestly believe everything the media throws at you? Dont you know that there job is to write a story first, and find facts later? Chan Chandler did not “throw” anyone out of the church, if you guys would stop ranting and actually study how Southern Baptist Polity really worked you would know that the pastor can not do that! Good grief, the people he kicked out are the people that went to the press, that tells you enough about their character! Get the facts straight before you condemn someone of not preaching “love” and “inclusiveness” Dont you people see that you shoot yourself with your own gun!

    Get a life,
    Jeremullet

  • Jeremullet –
    Thank you for your comment. I, for one, know practically nothing at all about Baptist polity, and would appreciate a little instruction.
    And you seem to contradict yourself. You say the pastor cannot “‘throw’ anyone out of the church,” but then refer to “the people he kicked out.” Could you explain the inconsistency?
    And as to the facts: were the ones who “went to the press” indeed only those who were “kicked out?” There were no others? If so, which act came first – the going to the press, or the kicking-out?
    If the kicking was first, that suggests to me that the God-given need for a voice, no longer available within the Body, was supremely compelling, and that the seeking of it was an act of courageous faith. Even more so for those who “went” who hadn’t been “kicked,” if any.
    If the going was first, that suggests to me an Inquisition-style demand on the Pastor’s part for an auto-de-fe, in protest against which the Baptist tradition – indeed, all Protestantism – in part has its roots.
    The Rev Scott Elliott,
    Deacon, ECUSA

  • Rev. Elliot,
    Thank you for showing that inconsistency, I need to proof read a little better. What was meant was that the pastor – by himself – has no power to throw out anyone on his own accord. The congregation has to to vote on it. In this case Chan did not even vote. The other congregants voted against these 9, so they were kicked out. As for your question as to which came first, let me make sure I understand you, (you used a lot of really big words), (1) Who went to the press? Well, the ones who were voted out (sure some others that were not kicked out were on their side)(2)Which came first the kicking or going? Why would they go before they were kicked out? What happened is that there were 9 people who were doing something that was in need of church discipline (a doctrine that is looked over too often) and they choose not to repent of whatever it was they were doing. So the church as a whole voted them out. Now, their feelings are hurt and they want to get even so you end up in this whole mess. Just dont turn off your brain when you watch the news. They just want the big story.

    Jeremullet

  • I for one resent the attempts of the religious right’s use of the church to force others to vote for a particular candidate. Especially since their own spiritual homes are not built upon the most solid of foundations. The religious right is just as guilty of picking and choosing that they accuse their opponents of when it comes to religion. There seems to be either very little or no concern for the less fortunate, it seems to be more about morality or tying right wing politicians to God and Jesus.

  • Chan has been singled out, spit on, and abused by just about everyone with a view from the left side of the political spectrum. Why? Because Chan has a view that is driven by his strong biblical conviction that abortion and homo sexuality are wrong. If he had endorsed a democratic candidate all of you would be throwing flowers at him. I lost count of how many black pastors I saw on T.V. endorsing Kerry during the election. How many of you are willing to sic the IRS on them? How many of you are willing to throw stones at them? Those black pastors were standing on thier convictions just as Chan was standing on his. Chan has not fallen from grace but is resting and holding fast to it.

  • Democrats:John Kerry, John (what was his name?), Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, and others, all proselitized for their candidates at many churchs and not so much as a blip was heard from the leftist media.
    But, of course, there is no bias. To vote for a sleaze is to be a sleaze. Is there anyone who thinks that pediphiles should not be in political power? What about those who would vote for them? It is the same for pro-abort baby killers. If the church cannot sanction those who murder, cause others to murder, or vote for those who promote murder, what would be the purpose of the church?

    • Comments are closed.