Blog-Journalism: Exclusive Q&A with Deacon at East Waynesville Baptist

An Exclusive Q & A
Blog-Journalism from The Daily Bailout

A Follow-up of Sunday's Blog-Journalism

Daily Bailout's John Bailes talks with Lewis R. Inman (a deacon at East Waynesville Baptist Church, North Carolina) about recent fuss over his minister's attempts to push Kerry voters out of the church. The interview was conducted on May 9, 2005. Also, see the Chattanooga Pulse news feature on the Waynesville group.

Q: How long have you lived in Waynesville?
A: About 35 years.
Q: How long have you been at the church?
A: About the same amount of time for me and my wife.
Q: How many attend East Waynesville Baptist?
A: About 100 people on Sundays.
Q: I hear you are a deacon at the church, but you had been voted out. Is that right?
A: Things just boiled up and got worse and worse after Oct. '04.
Q: What happened in Oct. '04?
A: Our preacher [Rev. Chan Chandler], who was doing wonderful until then, decided to preach on politics. And so he started a six-series sermon on why we should vote for George Bush and not John Kerry. He told us that if we voted for John Kerry, we should leave the church. Or we could repent. We heard six sermons like this. So we (deacons) got together and told him that we were going to turn him into the IRS if he kept this up. He was breaking our bylaws as well. But he kept it up anyway. And now it's boiled over.
Q: How so?
A: Well, we haven't had communion for months, not even Easter. And then last Sunday [May 1] the preacher [Rev. Chan Chandler] gave two more political sermons. Then he announced that there was going to be a deacons' meeting Monday night, and that everyone was invited. Deacons' meetings usually don't involve the whole church, so I knew something was up. Well, Monday night came and they had a lynching with 40 people who he [Chandler] had brought into the church over the last year--mainly teenagers and some adults. They needed a three-quarters majority to vote us out, and they told us they were going to do it. There were eleven of us. And nine of us just stood up and left right then, before they had a chance to vote.
Q: What happened then?
A: Those young people stood up and hollered and clapped and jumped up and down. The preacher and his wife have those young people wrapped around their fingers. She's the youth minister. After we left, the other two deacons stayed on and heard what the preacher's supporters had to say. We heard that they voted us out of the church. That's what Rev. Claude Conard [a lay minister] said. And they told us how he [Chandler] was going to require that every member from now on sign a card that said they had to agree with his moral and political views.
Q: What kind of cards?
A: Membership cards.
Q: Why?
A: He told them that this was going to be a political church. And if you supported John Kerry in the election last year, you were supporting abortions and gay marriage. This is what we'd been hearing for months anyway. So it looked like if you're not a Republican, you're not going to heaven. But I know I've been washed in the blood of the lamb.
Q: Are you a Democrat?
A: Yes sir. I have been all my life. A union man too. Then Dayco Products shut down in 1998 and I had to start my own lawn maintenance business. Dayco went overseas. But this thing at church, this was worse, because it is like my family. Most of my friends I've made over 35 years are here.
Q: Did the plant closing affect your decision in the 2004 election?
A: Sure. I'm 60 years old and I didn't need to lose my job to a foreign nation. I'm also a Vietnam veteran, and I know what John Kerry went through.
Q: What happened yesterday, Sunday, May 8?
A: The eleven of us, along with some others, went to the church yesterday. And wouldn't you know it, the preacher didn't say a thing about politics. Cameras and journalists were all over. We gathered in the parking lot. There were plenty of police. And we all walked in together. The preacher spoke on being born again, which is what he should have been talking about all the time.

•  Thanks for the encouragement Sunday

  Five more exclusive interviews are coming. I'm in the process of transcripting them. Please check out the story that will be in the Chattanooga Pulse this week.

  by southlib on Tue May 10, 2005 at 03:51:41 AM PDT

  •  Keep it up!

    You're doing a terrific job on this.

    by incertus on Tue May 10, 2005 at 04:23:02 AM PDT

  •  Thank you

    For doing this!  I feel like I have an inside track on the story.  Good work!

    by AndyT on Tue May 10, 2005 at 06:27:24 AM PDT

  •  There's a bigger narrative here

    ...which is the corruption of religion by political power. Consider as another point of evidence the Bush Fish:

    <center></center>

    What's the not-so-subtle message here? That Christ and Bush are one and the same?

    Between this and the loyalty oath membership cards, I'm scared out of my minds. Rest assured I'll be cleaning my guns when I get home.

    by maxomai on Tue May 10, 2005 at 08:33:38 AM PDT

    •  Or the pope (n/t)

      by southlib on Tue May 10, 2005 at 08:43:21 AM PDT

  •  I appreciate your work, southlib

    Good job!

    by zett on Tue May 10, 2005 at 05:04:55 PM PDT

•  A little legal advice goes a long way

  Methinks the pastor probably talked to a lawyer about the IRS implications and/or had a few phone calls from church higher ups that told him to can it or he was not only going to get himself in trouble, but the church as well.

  Shine a little light and watch them hide!

  by Fabian on Tue May 10, 2005 at 03:54:17 AM PDT

  •  Nothing like bringing world to Waynesville (n/t)

    by southlib on Tue May 10, 2005 at 04:07:08 AM PDT

  •  Tell the IRS anyway

    I don't know if the IRS is well staffed enough to move on this, even assuming they read or hear about it.

    My guess is that some formal complaint or notice must be lodged for the IRS or Justice Dept to act.

    This politician-preacher will revert back to his old ways as soon as the heat is off. The press will go away. The best solution is to get rid of this guy, and the way to do that is to have the IRS investigate him. Make him turn over his sermon notes, interview young people at that meeting, where he mentioned the "you gotta agree with my politics" cards.

    That'll be enough to reveal the use of the church as a political organ. Which, in turn, will be enough to get the minister fired from the church. Because the national church leaders won't dare lose their tax exempt status. They'll jettison this minister in 2 seconds.

    by Toadvine on Tue May 10, 2005 at 04:50:51 AM PDT

    •  The IRS

      won't do a thing about it because this church is promoting Republicans.  If it were promoting Democrats, they'd lose their exempt status in a heartbeat.

      by nupstateny on Tue May 10, 2005 at 05:09:55 AM PDT

      •  I call bullshit on this

        The IRS won't do a thing about it because this church is promoting Republicans.  If it were promoting Democrats, they'd lose their exempt status in a heartbeat.

        So give up forcing government to do its job, right? Bullshit! Force them to investigate, and force them to either uphold the law, or violate it for political reasons. If they violate it for political reasons, go after them for that.

        I have no time for this chickenshit "Oh, what's the use?" attitude. Either we get busy fighting these bastards at every opportunity, or we go down.

        I'm not going down. How about you?
        

        by Ivan on Tue May 10, 2005 at 07:57:28 AM PDT

        •  Exactly!

          If we roll over and say "what's the use?", then that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

          This is why Republicans love seeing cynicality in Democrats and other lefties.  Cynicism breeds despair, and despairing people have no energy to fight.  

          by Phoenix Woman on Tue May 10, 2005 at 08:14:31 AM PDT

          •  Agree (n/t)

            by southlib on Tue May 10, 2005 at 08:46:14 AM PDT

        •  Absolutely! We have to find all evidence (n/t)

          by southlib on Tue May 10, 2005 at 08:47:04 AM PDT

    •  Someone should

      jettison him.  I think it would help to call whatever organization his church is "part" of...although I suppose it could be an independent church.  I'd love to know who holds the keys to his future, so to speak.
      I did find a short statement on the website for the "Baptist State Convention of North Carolina" (in the "pressroom" section)  Their executive director-treasurers says that Chandler's church contributes financially to their state, national and international ministries.  The head of the organization says this is "highly unusual" and doesn't expect it to happen again because it is so unusual...hmmm.  He warned that Chandler's actions could threaten his IRS status.  I wonder if their larger status is threatened if they continue to take money from Chandler's church??  

      by lam2b2g on Tue May 10, 2005 at 05:37:48 AM PDT

    •  It just goes to show

      Because the national church leaders won't dare lose their tax exempt status. They'll jettison this minister in 2 seconds.

      That money is more important than the teachings of Christ. I would think that if they believed in what they preached then losing thier tax exempt status would be a fair price to pay. After all the Catholic Church is full of martyrs who gave up their lives following Christ's teachings.
      

      by p a roberson on Tue May 10, 2005 at 06:27:39 AM PDT

    •  Hoping to attend the church service Sunday (n/t)

      by southlib on Tue May 10, 2005 at 08:44:46 AM PDT

•  thank you!

  And thanks for posting this in its full form.

  by OrangeClouds115 on Tue May 10, 2005 at 04:15:52 AM PDT

  •  I recall you asked for clarity...

    I hope this helps. There are five other interviews to be transcripted.

    by southlib on Tue May 10, 2005 at 04:29:40 AM PDT

    •  Yes!

      I'm very glad you posted the whole thing, and I'm looking forward to reading the other five. Keep up the good work!

      by 4fx on Tue May 10, 2005 at 08:34:44 AM PDT

    •  thanks

      this really was great.  I do appreciate it.

      by OrangeClouds115 on Tue May 10, 2005 at 05:34:15 PM PDT

•  This is it.

  This is exactly what open-minded individuals on the left and the right need to be doing: finding a "human interest story" that focuses national attention on what's going on in some of these churches. It's far too easy in a sect without an entrenched beaurocracy for individual churches to become cults of personality, controlled by a single preacher and his family. Not that having an ecclesiastical hierarchy or a Pope doesn't come with its own pros and cons, but when the Pope says something, it's all over the news. If Pastor Joe says something on a month of Sundays, no one knows but the parishoners.

  Exposing the rhetoric and tactics being employed works to everyone's advantage. If anything should be open-source, it's religion.

  Thanks for the diaries; they're extremely interesting.

  by Irony on Tue May 10, 2005 at 04:56:42 AM PDT

  •  Thanks, Irony.

    We've got to work harder at bringing the story to light of day.

    by southlib on Tue May 10, 2005 at 08:49:06 AM PDT

•  Powerful

  Very good job.  I especially liked the last answer: "...spoke on being born again, which is  what he should have been talking about all the time."

  May I quote this in a letter to the editor in my local paper?
  Also, I can't understand a minister who won't give communion.  What was he thinking with that...deprive them of communion and then they'll sign the cards?

  by Margot on Tue May 10, 2005 at 04:57:30 AM PDT

  •  Margot,

    thanks for the encouragement.

    On the absence of communion, the issue was really with the deacons. They decided not to allow communion (a sacrament) until all was right, i.e. until the minister stopped pushing politics.

    by southlib on Tue May 10, 2005 at 08:51:03 AM PDT

    •  Oh I see

      Makes sense.  
      That minister needs to find a new job. He wants a cult of personality, let him be a radio host. He's not cut out to pastor a congregation, at least as far as I can tell, not when he hurts people like this.

      by Margot on Tue May 10, 2005 at 01:57:02 PM PDT

•  Both sides win in this scenario

  My guess is that this also plays into the right's desire to eliminate the irs' rule surrounding a religious group's non-profit status when it comes to politics and the church.  There is legislation afoot to do just that, and a high profile case such as this might take it into the national conscience and further the belief that the Christian right is being persecuted for it's beliefs.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out, however I'm pretty sure for all the perceived negative fallout, that the conservative right will see gains from the perceived persecution as well.

  by jalbert on Tue May 10, 2005 at 05:13:55 AM PDT

  •  Apart from fufilling their

    bizzarre beliefs that they are somehow persecuted by the government, I don't see how this case wins them any points in the court of public opinion.  Reasonable people, churchgoing or not, will recognize this preacher's actions as weird and, yes, cultlike.  Jeebus freaks who are members of their own borderline cults will of course find common ground with this holy warrior, but IMO it will only further alienate non-cult christians and non-christians alike.
    

    by Ugluks Flea on Tue May 10, 2005 at 05:54:06 AM PDT

  •  I.E. playing victim? (n/t)

    by southlib on Tue May 10, 2005 at 08:52:06 AM PDT

•  See what happens...

  ...When you infuse politics with religion, you inevitably infect religion with politics.

  Are reasonable evangelicals figuring this out yet?

  by baldandy on Tue May 10, 2005 at 05:37:08 AM PDT

•  Wow, man...

  Heavy Jim Jones vibe here...

  Pass it along...maybe asshat Chris Matthews will steal it if we say it enough, and we can expose all of the Falwell-Robertson-Frist-Schiavo axis as the new Jim Joneses of the 2K5.

  by skiddlybop on Tue May 10, 2005 at 05:54:23 AM PDT

  •  You might want to skip that angle.

    Jim Jones was heavily active in progressive politics in the Bay Area before relocating to Guyana.

    by pastordan on Tue May 10, 2005 at 06:48:25 AM PDT

  •  I hope that we can through ...

    blog-journalism start influencing the media.

    by southlib on Tue May 10, 2005 at 08:53:31 AM PDT

•  Southlib, you are a true journalist ...

  Congrats on the fine work you are doing.

  BTW to those who are not familiar with the Baptists, my understanding is the convention has no power over local churches; only the congregation can decide if a minister can stay or go. Therefore if the church is already stacked for this fake man of God, he will win all in fights. He might split the church in two, he might make them a laughing stock, but he won't lose his job unless he or the flock decide it is so.

  by Lefty the playwright on Tue May 10, 2005 at 06:05:39 AM PDT

  •  You are correct.

    In many denominations with a "congregational polity," such as my own UCC, the pastor's credentials are held by a larger church body. They can't force the congregation to fire the pastor, but they can lift the credentials. (So if I got in trouble at a particular church, I could continue at the congregation, but I would no longer be entitled to call myself a UCC minister, or receive any support from them.)

    However, for many Baptists, the only credentialing body is the congregation itself. So the association/convention/whatever has almost no control over the minister.

    by pastordan on Tue May 10, 2005 at 06:55:02 AM PDT

    •  Baptists and credentialing

      It's common among Baptists for a minister to be ordained and credentialed by a larger body/convention/etc., but a pastor is "called" by a specific congregation.  They can revoke that calling any time they choose if they're unhappy with how the pastor is performing.

      by Leslie in CA on Tue May 10, 2005 at 07:07:41 AM PDT

      •  Yep, the congregation

        always extends the call. I don't know Southern Baptist polity, but either way of credentialing is common practice: could be a larger body, could be just the congregation itself.

        by pastordan on Tue May 10, 2005 at 07:46:22 AM PDT

  •  Teenagers

    The fact that most of those at the meetings were teenagers is significant.  That quite possibly means most of the adults didn't agree with the ouster, so there's a chance the rest of the congregation will indeed send the pastor packing.

    by Leslie in CA on Tue May 10, 2005 at 06:59:57 AM PDT

    •  Some 40+ adults joined the nine

      outside in the parking lot last Sunday and walked into church with them.

      by southlib on Tue May 10, 2005 at 08:56:34 AM PDT

  •  That's right!

    Coming in another interview: How Baptist Polity works from perspective of two Southern Baptist ministers, one of whom is pastor in Waynesville.

    by southlib on Tue May 10, 2005 at 08:55:00 AM PDT

•  He's a divider, not a uniter

  I can't imagine the majority of the membership is real thrilled with the division and the negative attention. If 40 additional members supported the 11 enough to withdraw on their own, then the congregation may vote him out. Congregations expect some level of "godliness" from their leaders. Lying may keep him and the church from losing their tax status, but it won't make him more revered by his flock.

  In addition to the IRS status, there are FEC regulations to consider. It is illegal to give something of value in return for a promise to vote a certain way. In most Baptist churches, membership is something of value because it includes co-ownership of the church and all its assets. Giving membership for signed cards promising to vote whatever way the pastor tells you to certaintly seems to violate that policy.

  by white blitz on Tue May 10, 2005 at 06:27:18 AM PDT

  •  Do you have a link for FEC guidelines? (n/t)

    by southlib on Tue May 10, 2005 at 08:57:42 AM PDT

    •  Ooh you got me

      I was going from memory based on the story of vote bribing by cigarettes. It turns out that most state laws have that language about or anything of value,... promise to vote (or promise to vote a certain way).

      You can google
          42 U.S.C. §1973i (c)
      for the Federal law that mentions pay in regards to vote bribing. Still NC may very likely have the language about vote bribing. Any lawyers care to weigh in?
      

      by white blitz on Tue May 10, 2005 at 12:54:58 PM PDT

•  Here's some backup

  for my thesis that there's something deeply wrong with this church, politics or not: "we haven't had communion for months, not even Easter," and "He told them that this was going to be a political church."

  No healthy pastor would deny sacraments to a congregation, or buck the governing board when it came to him with such a serious matter. And certainly no healthy pastor would declare his congregation a "political church." I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction: Chandler will abruptly walk from the congregation within the next few months, claiming the controversy has taken an emotional and spiritual toll on himself and his family. The kids he brought into the church will walk out behind him, leaving behind a confused wreck of a congregation.
  

  by pastordan on Tue May 10, 2005 at 06:47:16 AM PDT

  •  A note on communions

    Having grown up Southern Baptist, I can tell you that Communion and other "sacrements"-- we never called anything a sacrement-- did not happen every service.  In fact, Communion usually only happened every month.  Going for two months without it is not that unusual in a Baptist church.

    Baptists sort of reject rituals, as they think that people will just "go through the motions" while practicing them.  I occasionally attend an Episcopalian church these days, and I have to disagree with my former church.

    by nanoboy on Tue May 10, 2005 at 06:54:53 AM PDT

    •  Right.

      Sacraments (or "remembrances," as they're often called in Baptist churches) are not as important as they might be in other denominations.

      But the deacon's implication here is that this church did have communion each month--or at least on a regular schedule--and the pastor had not observed it. That's a serious problem, especially since the pastor's duties in many church bylaws are something "to preach and teach the gospel and provide the sacraments for the congregation".

      by pastordan on Tue May 10, 2005 at 06:59:10 AM PDT

      •  Good point

        about the context of the interviewee's statement.  Still, to a Catholic or other "high church" type of Christian, not having Communion for two months is unthinkable.  You might as well tell them that no one sang during the service for a year.  I just wanted to make sure that people were aware that two months' lapse in Communions isn't as long in the Baptist churches as in others.

        by nanoboy on Tue May 10, 2005 at 07:23:24 AM PDT

      •  That's right, pastordan.

        Communion is called a "remembrance" in Baptist lingo, and evidently the church was serving communion once per month before the crisis in Oct. '04. The deacons, btw, were the group to put a stop to the "Remembrance of the Lord's Supper."

        by southlib on Tue May 10, 2005 at 09:01:41 AM PDT

  •  I think your predictions are correct

    He's already tried the "it was all a misunderstanding" bit.  That angle was rendered inoperative nationwide when CBS News played the audiotape of one of his sermons.
    

    He literally is boxed in now.  Either he backs down, or leaves.  And I can't see him backing down.
    

    The Salem witchcraft craziness makes an interesting parallel.  Specifically, the madness had its origins in the fact that one part of Salem (the "village", or the farming part of the town; later to split off and become its own town) was getting the short end of the stick socially and economically, while the other part (the "town", where the harbors, businesses and most of the people were, and which was generally not as strictly religious as Salem village) was doing very well.  
    

    If this had been 1848 Post-Enlightenment France, the Salem villagers would have thought of this in purely economic terms.  But this was 1690s New England, where God-fearing persons were not supposed to question their economic lot in life.  
    

    So instead, the suppressed resentment and fears for the future manifested in witchcraft accusations -- all of which were directed squarely at people who were:
    

    a) materially better-off than the typical Salem villager, and/or
    

    b) socially more liberal and generally better-educated, and/or
    

    c) who stood out by being noticeably different from the other Salem villagers (people such as assertive wives (aka "scolds"), and overly-poor people -- yes, the Salem villagers, themselves poor, attacked those even poorer than themselves; sounds very familiar, doesn't it?).
    

    Rev. Parris, himself a failure both in business and the ministry before winding up at Salem village, locked into and reinforced this mindset, just as the current religious-righties (including Chandler) discourage people from seeing their situation clearly and instead encourage them to find scapegoats on whom to vent their anger.   Because of this, over one hundred people would be accused of witchcraft, and over two dozen people would be executed -- including the former minister of Salem village, George Burroughs! -- or die in prison as a result.
    

    Finally, the Parris faction grossly overreached itself, and started accusing people too powerful to be executed.  The fervor started to leak out of the witchhunts.  Within a few years, Parris would be off for greener pastures; and in 1711, most of the convictions were overturned (though this was two decades too late to save the condemned witches).
    

    One good thing about modern America:  People didn't have to die before this modern-day Samuel Parris overreached himself.

    by Phoenix Woman on Tue May 10, 2005 at 08:08:34 AM PDT

    •  Phoenix Woman: What an amazing reply! (n/t)

      by southlib on Tue May 10, 2005 at 09:03:37 AM PDT

•  there are a lot of guys out there like Mr. Inman

  This is a perfect example of what Addison was saying on the Eureka thread about getting human interest stories out that show the reality of Blue support.

  There are people on this site who would automatically assume that a 60 year old man living in the South who belongs to the kind of church that talks about being washed in the blood of the lamb would automatically be opposed to us.

  Not true.  Not true.  Not true.

  Mr. Inman is part of the True Blue Majority.  We are fortunate that he knows it.  If he can talk to his neighbors the way he did in this interview, he and others like him can turn NC blue.

  by TrueBlueMajority on Tue May 10, 2005 at 07:43:45 AM PDT

  •  I need to apologize to Jefé

    Jefé, if you're around, I need to apologize to you RE: my comments on Eric Rudolph.  (I'd do it via e-mail, but I zapped your letter by mistake when de-spamming my in-box.)  I made the mistake of trusting the national media on this one.

    by Phoenix Woman on Tue May 10, 2005 at 08:12:02 AM PDT

  •  Amen! (n/t)

    by southlib on Tue May 10, 2005 at 09:04:25 AM PDT

•  An encouraging interview

  I have been struggling with my attitude towards all those of an evangelical Christian persuasion for a while.  I appreciated hearing this man's perceptive and frank comments - it reminded me that stereotyping is unproductive.  

  I especially liked his comments about being a union man and the pain he felt when his job left.  My parents were from a steel town in western Pennsylvania and when all those local economies collapsed, entire towns were left literally grieving.  A lot of people there turned to fundamentalist religions for comfort, because it felt like their entire world had been steamrollered and they were desperate for some hope.

  by KibbutzAmiad on Tue May 10, 2005 at 08:37:30 AM PDT

  •  What you're saying...

    sounds like it has the passion in what Inman was saying to me.

    by southlib on Tue May 10, 2005 at 09:05:31 AM PDT