Voting God’s ticket

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):

1. 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. I’ll try to examine it from a non-partisan standpoint.

   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.

2. I think this it is, ultimately, self-defeating for any congregation to kick out dissenters, except in the most extreme cases. And I wince at it being done based on partisan politics, though …

3. I don’t know what the IRS code says, specifically, but generally speaking non-profits endanger their tax-exempt status if they advocate particular candidates (or, presumably, if they advocate against particular candidates). But …

4. That said, how can you possibly divorce religion and politics, at least from this standpoint of voting? If one’s religion affects one’s moral code (presumably), then it affects how one interacts with the rest of humanity — from a Christian perspective, the “two greatest commandments” involve relationship with God and relationship with others (the Golden Rule). Politics, in terms of establishing and regulating society, is a formal expression of that second part.

   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.

5. Were I a member of that congregation, I would resign. I would resign regardless of my vote in November. But just as I believe in an individual having a right of association — to choose what church to belong to — I also believe that applies to churches themselves, and if a church wants to kick out people for voting a particular way, or for having blue eyes, or whatever, that is their right (and best it be out in the open that they feel that way).

   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.

6. Should the church lose its tax-exempt status? I’m not a tax lawyer (nor do I have any interest of playing one on TV), but it strikes me that it’s an awfully fuzzy line, especially when dealing with the First Amendment part of this. If I had to draw that line where I feel is proper, it would be in favor of the church in this case (vs. a case where a church was actively campaigning for someone with signs and get-out-the-vote-for-Candidate-X drives).

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.