Is Representative Stan Lee qualified to be an elder at Hill-n-Dale Christian Church?
Matt Gunterman May 30th, 2007
Republican State Representative Stan Lee is one of the most freakishly superstitious and comically unreasoned people in the legislature.
Mark Nickolas has well documented this fact for some time now at the Bluegrass Report. For a good primer on the subject, see “The Frightening Fanaticism Of Attorney General Candidate Stan Lee (R).”
Also of interest is Media Czech’s take on Lee’s strange, out-of-the-mainstream behavior in his rather humorous “Atheist Voting Guide to Fall 2007 KY Elections.”
I must say, if you haven’t read this account of Stan Lee telling perfect strangers in his office about the impending arrival of the End Times, then you must read it. It’s crazy talk from the man.
Now, pretty much all of Stan Lee’s campaign literature mentions that he is an elder at Hill-n-Dale Christian Church in Lexington.
I am, in fact, a practicing Campbellite just like Stan Lee (only I’m of the Church of Christ persuasion, like Jody Richards, but I’m probably far more liberal in my theology than Richards, but I might be wrong on that, but I’m probably not).
And, as a fellow Campbellite, I know all about elders of the church and their qualifications (elders are also called bishops, and they are appointed by and from within the various independent congregations). Those qualifications are spelled out in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and they are:
1 Timothy 3:1-7
1: This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3: Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4: One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5: (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6: Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7: Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Now, Stan Lee and people who think like him believe that they can use their interpretations of the scriptures in the political process to dictate how I can live out my own secular life.
I wholeheartedly agree that Stan Lee and his fellow elders are within their rights to regulate their own congregation via those interpretations. In fact, if I were a member of Hill-n-Dale Christian Church, the eldership there would be more than welcome to disfellowship me; I would wear the mark with pride.
Where Stan Lee and his posse are wrong is that those beliefs have any business dictating the political and civil rights of the American citizenry. For example, two secular issues that Stan Lee seems to think are the business of his superstition are reproductive rights and same-sex marriage.
So, I say let’s reverse the flow. Let’s use the scriptures to judge Stan Lee and see if he’s qualified to be an elder at Hill-n-Dale Christian Church. Lee uses his status as an elder in his campaign, so it’s entirely fair game.
Stan Lee is unqualified to be an elder of the church, a shepherd of the flock, a bishop of the bride of Christ because the public record shows that his temperament is not sober, he is not of good behavior, he is not given to hospitality, is impatient, is an argumentative brawler, and he most certainly does not have a good report with those of us who are without.
For more on the qualifications of elders, see this handy little website.
- Religious Fanaticism , Stan Lee
- Comments(2)
FYI- Stan Lee is not currently serving in leadership at Hill n Dale Christian Church…
Could you be more blatantly misleading? It’s extremely telling that your link; “The Frightening Fanaticism of Attorney General Stan Lee (R)” doesn’t connect to any article on Stan Lee but rather a PORN site. You neglect to mention that your summary of what it means to be an elder of ANY church is just that YOUR summary, which is bogus at best. You are arrogant, shameful & a disgrace to anyone wanting to bring serious attention to the roles of our public officials. I can only hope that since the time you wrote this you’ve made enough money to buy yourself a clue.