One of the nation’s premier watchdog groups concerning abusive religion says something is rotten about the recent state court ruling that allowed a pastoral takeover of Second Baptist Church of Houston.
In an analysis written by Pete Evans, the Trinity Foundation says Texas Business Court Judge Grant Dorfman erred in his recent ruling that cited the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine as a reason not to interfere with governance of the Houston megachurch.
Since 1972, Trinity Foundation has been at the forefront of exposing fraud in religious bodies, ranging from Benny Hinn to Jimmy Swaggart to Oral Roberts, Paula White and Robert Tilton.
Trinity Foundation investigator Pete Evans (Photo courtesy of Trinity Foundation)
Evans calls what happened at Second Baptist a “bait-and-switch vote on church bylaws to replace congregational governance with family control.”
BNG previously reported on the case, Jeremiah Counsel Corporation v. Ben Young, et al. and its legal resolution.
“The ruling serves as a textbook example of poorly conceived court precedents serving as legal protection for religious leaders,” Evans says.
“The main question in this case is: Was fraud committed on the entire congregation of roughly 94,000 members by eliminating their right to vote with no prior notice? Trinity Foundation believes this matter should have been put before a jury and not discarded by a single judge’s decision.”
Evans reviews the history of the ecclesial abstention doctrine, including an 1879 unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that free exercise of religion is not absolute when it conflicts with valid civil and criminal laws applicable to everyone.
“In this case, the matter conflicts with Texas nonprofit organization business law,” Evans asserts.
The judge relies heavily on a statement in the brief notice for the meeting that said changes were necessary in order for Second Baptist to continue as a “biblical church.” He asks: How can a secular court adjudicate a definition of a “biblical church”?
Yet that phrase “never appears in the 2023 contested bylaws,” Evans explains. “How, in God’s name, would Second Baptist members know intuitively that ‘operating as a biblical church’ meant they would permanently eliminate their voting rights or any involvement in the church’s governance at all? Voting rights cannot be construed to be a matter of church doctrine.
A fiduciary of a nonprofit organization, including churches, has three primary responsibilities, Evans says: A duty of care, a duty of loyalty and a duty of obedience.
“The Young Group as self-appointed fiduciaries violated all three of these duties by not presenting the bylaws in advance to Second Baptist trustees or the congregation, before the May 2023 contested bylaws vote,” Evans states.
The author concludes: “Pastors and other church leaders have a duty to be transparent and accountable to their congregations. If deception is certified by any judge, that is clearly injustice. By secretly eliminating Second Baptist congregation’s 94,000 members’ right to vote, the Young Group gained control of close to a billion dollars’ worth of assets and no longer reports to the congregation how the money is spent.”
And, he adds: “This case has nothing to do with the First Amendment’s separation of church and state. Voting rights are an organization’s business practice across the board, certified by both for-profit and nonprofit business law; they are not a matter of any church doctrine.”
Related:
Lawsuit against Second Baptist Houston tossed out
Houston lawsuit is a tale of pastoral succession, megachurch wealth and family dynasty
Why you should care about the Second Baptist Houston lawsuit | Analysis by Mark Wingfield