In the end, members of the East Waynesville Baptist Church may find a way to mend the rift that has ripped apart the church and turned a national spotlight on Waynesville. Those involved are impassioned people, but like most of us they probably prefer reconciliation to conflict. As people across this country reflect on this story, though, it offers a chance for us as a nation to continue an important discourse on the issue of politics, religion, and the delicate yet important balance between the two.

The problems at East Waynesville Baptist, essentially, erupted due to a difference in how politics and religion should co-mingle. According to some church members, Rev. Chan Chandler and other deacons told church members they either supported President Bush — because he was against homosexuality and abortion — or else they leave the church. There’s some talk that the political litmus test may have been as much about supporting Chandler as supporting Bush, but it is the political issue that finally got the stew to boil over.

And it has been a mess ever since.

The difficulty in solving these kinds of problems is not hard to see. How does one separate their values, which in many are a reflection of their religious faith, from their political ideology? If I believe that war is evil, poverty is unnecessary, abortion is wrong, and the earth is sacred, then those beliefs will undoubtedly carry over into the voting booth. I will vote my conscience, as most of us do.

Churches have always supported causes, whether it was suffrage for women, civil rights for minorities, or ending war. That has been the role of the church in our free society. If not for the fiery rhetoric of fierce, Christian abolitionists forcing the issue of slavery onto the national scene, the Civil War may have been fought a decade or two later. Many, many positive changes in the history of this country and the world have been promulgated due to the work of organized religion.

Seldom, though, have these institutions taken the stance of supporting specific candidates. Almost never have they required that their own members support those candidates. But that is what happened with the young preacher at East Waynesville Baptist.

It is in turning this equation around that problems have arisen: sure we carry our morals into the voting booth, but what about when we are asked to bring our political beliefs into a place of worship. In this case, many of those who were asked to leave the church supported the very positions being espoused by the minister. One member told us he voted for Bush and does not support abortion and thinks homosexuality is a sin. He felt strongly, however, that membership in a church should not be based upon one’s political affiliation.

Imagine the consequences of having this kind of test taken a few steps further. If church membership suddenly becomes linked with one’s political beliefs, then the very nature of our religious institutions will change. Right now churches are barred from supporting individual candidates and can’t spend all their energies supporting particular legislation. If they do, they will lose their tax exemption. They would also lose members and denigrate their own mission, many argue.

That’s why most American religious organizations, including the state Southern Baptist Association, do not support a law that would allow churches to become politically active. The bill, the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act, is supported by Rep. Charles Taylor (R-Brevard) and was introduced by Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.). It would unfetter churches from restraints placed on them by the IRS.

Passage of this bill would be a huge mistake. In the minds of many, myself included, religion will be sullied if it links itself too closely with politics. The spiritual instinct of the human race is too sacred and important to become simply a part of some political institution. Keeping organized religion out of partisan politics is absolutely necessary for the survival of both institutions.

We were all witness to the political gamesmanship that was made of religion during the last presidential election: President George Bush’s campaign played on the perception that he was more religious and that people who didn’t support his candidacy were anti-Christian; Sen. John Kerry’s handlers tried to imply that it was extremely impudent for any candidate, or person, to claim that God was on their side. Polls showed most conservative Christians supported Bush.

But the problem of preaching from the pulpit goes both ways. Many African-American churches and ministers openly supported Kerry in the last campaign. According to national news reports, some of those ministers said openly that they didn’t care what the law said, but that they were going to urge supporters to support Kerry. Other church leaders made it clear that the faithful should support Bush.

All of these leaders could be accused of violating IRS regulations about being involved in politics. The difference is that, in none of these cases, were church members asked to leave their place of worship or voted off a church’s rolls because of who they voted for.

Some are arguing that a rift like that in the East Waynesville Baptist Church is a direct result of the politicizing of religion. It’s easy to believe that there is a connection. Perhaps the Rev. Chandler may have been emboldened as much by his political beliefs as his spiritual ideals. I may be wrong, and I certainly can’t speak for Chandler, but if that is the case it is a troublesome territory into which we are venturing.

(Scott McLeod can be reached at info@smokymountainnews.com.)