What the feedback on Second Baptist's school?

It's been the hot school for people to want to transfer to. Curious why?

Yeah. I'm assuming it's a decent school. It was just suddenly this year that 2-4 kids (out of 20ish in the grade) decided to try and transfer there.

I don't know that I understood what the reason was. I don't think any of them are really Baptist or anything.

I would say that the majority of Second Baptist families are not "Baptist" nor attend church there. I see it as a great school with really good athletics and fine arts opportunities. There is definitely a Christian foundation with Bible classes and weekly chapel.

I have 3 at Second (8th, 6th, and 3rd). I wouldn't say the homework load is nothing, but it's also not overbearing. 6th was probably the biggest homework load so far for whatever reason. It's a good school, not en elite educational school like some, but in our minds more than good enough. But what we found was the top end educational schools didn't have the religious aspect, and we wanted our kids to get a little Jesus at school too, so we like it.

I don't know if I'd say the majority don't go the Second for church. We've found most at least of our kids friends are members. But they don't offer much of a tuition break for church members like others do, so maybe that's a reason.

Bert315 said:

---

Jack Klompus said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

On a related note, it seems like the HFBC parking lot has been more crowded the past few Sundays.

---

Yes, the 11 am service has been much more crowded since about Easter.

---

We are seeing lots of movement from SB to HFBC and Kingsland out by us. Ive heard that the West campus for SB is really struggling with people leaving. I think the only solution is for Ben to step down but he won't. It speaks volumes that he had to be placed and not selected by the elders/deacons. Most churches have a search that the church body votes on.

---

We went to Second Baptist West for well over 10 years and really loved it. We thought Ben was OK and pretty good sometimes, but never really thought he should take over as head pastor. When he took over the music immediately became more contemporary. I prefer a blended service at least for Sunday morning. I can't recall what else I didn't like but knew it was time to try new churches.

We tried Kingsland Baptist first. We tried another but I really liked Kingsland right away. I think the pastor is fantastic. It has grown a lot and next week they are adding a 4th service. If you live in the area, I would highly recommend visiting. The church tends to have more local families and has a little more charm. Jeff from Veritas has performed with the choir a few times so he may have moved over too.

I hope everything works out for Second somehow.

Mega Lops said:

---

MarjorieM said:

---

Bert315 said:

---

Jack Klompus said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

On a related note, it seems like the HFBC parking lot has been more crowded the past few Sundays.

---

Yes, the 11 am service has been much more crowded since about Easter.

---

We are seeing lots of movement from SB to HFBC and Kingsland out by us. Ive heard that the West campus for SB is really struggling with people leaving. I think the only solution is for Ben to step down but he won't. It speaks volumes that he had to be placed and not selected by the elders/deacons. Most churches have a search that the church body votes on.

---

We went to Second Baptist West for well over 10 years and really loved it. We thought Ben was OK and pretty good sometimes, but never really thought he should take over as head pastor. When he took over the music immediately became more contemporary. I prefer a blended service at least for Sunday morning. I can't recall what else I didn't like but knew it was time to try new churches.

We tried Kingsland Baptist first. We tried another but I really liked Kingsland right away. I think the pastor is fantastic. It has grown a lot and next week they are adding a 4th service. If you live in the area, I would highly recommend visiting. The church tends to have more local families and has a little more charm. Jeff from Veritas has performed with the choir a few times so he may have moved over too.

I hope everything works out for Second somehow.

---

---

I appreciate the meem. And it's awesome.

I also hate how this saga is tearing a church apart.....and seems it will do so for a while.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Ben Young & crew filed a Notice of Removal to the new Business Court 11th Division. They are not wasting any time spending their parishioners' money on attorney fees- they have retained Liskow & Lewis here in Houston, Bill Jones out of Austin, and famed Trump attorney Jay Sekulow out of DC.

I am not sure how best to share.

https://www.hcdistrictclerk.com/Edocs/Public/ViewFilePage.aspx?Get=ELmtCnu4b/N6MNLPkCAJynpFCTNc4wADPF6pykjz8amqM8V4odyHa5xNUbdZ1S359QFV2MQz+nCHUKwBm3AU4nJm4dxcXS/yCMpOhFWgpzdOkDgNDMJyjL1KpT01VPM97uRTm5FLFe0=

---

The case was removed to the business court, which I am not sure is a savvy move for Defendants. They are going to want the situation viewed not in a business and bylaws context, but a religious one.

I see that 2nd/Young filed a Plea to the Jurisdiction on ecclesiastical abstention as well as dispute standing grounds, as was predicted:

Quote:

---

III. Plea to the Jurisdiction

A. Ecclesiastical Abstention and the Constitutional Guaranty of Church Autonomy
21. Ben Young, Homer Edwin Young, Lee Maxcy, Dennis Brewer, Jr., and Second Baptist Church ask this Court to dismiss Plaintiff's suit because of lack of jurisdiction. "The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine prohibits civil courts from delving into matters of theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or members' conformity to the church's moral standards." In re Texas Conf. of Seventh-Day Adventists, 652 S.W.3d 136, 143 (Tex. App.Fort Worth 2022 [mand. denied]) (citing Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 71314, 96 S. Ct. 2372, 2382, (1976)). Similarly, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution's "guarantee of church autonomy gives religious institutions the right to define their internal governance structures without state interference." Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. vs. Wisconsin Lab. & Indus. Rev. Comm'n, No. 24-154, slip op. at 1 (June 5, 2025) (Thomas, J. concurring). As the Petition asks this Court to "meddle in church government," this Court must dismiss. Texas Conf. of Seventh-Day Adventists, 652 S.W.3d at 143.

B. Lack of Standing
22. "An individual shareholder ordinarily has no individual cause of action for a wrong done to the corporation. But a derivative suit allows a shareholder to step into the shoes of a [for-profit] corporation and sue on its behalf." Tran v. Hoang, 481 S.W.3d 313, 316 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet denied). The causes of action asserted in Plaintiff's Original Petition are clearly derivative. But the Church is a non-profit organization. The cited case makes clear that, in contrast to for-profit corporations, the Business Organizations Code does not confer "this status upon the members of a nonprofit who are not authorized to sue by the organization itself." Id. Only shareholders may bring a derivative suit and "members of nonprofit organization are not shareholder, and thus lack derivative standing." Id. Furthermore, the fact that the Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief does not suffice to overcome their lack of standing. The Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act "does not confer jurisdiction where none exists. Id. at 318. As members of a non-profit corporation (Second Baptist), Plaintiff's directors would have no standing to bring derivative actions as urged in this lawsuit. As the individual members of JCC lack standing, so too does JCC. As such, this case must be dismissed.

---

The Jeremiah Counsel filed a lengthy response, citing the recent Southern Methodist Univ. v. South Cent. Juris. Conf. of the United Methodist Church, No. 23-0703, 2025 WL 1797692 (Tex. June 27, 2025) decision that the case should be decided on neutral principles rather than religious ones.

To further pad their roster and burn parishioners' funds, 2nd has hired yet another team of lawyers, this time lead by Wallace Jefferson.

More fun stuff going at second.
https://www.chron.com/culture/article/houston-second-baptist-pastor-child-porn-21223160.php

The Chron headline is a bit misleading. The alleged perp was a volunteer in the youth group, not a pastor (not on staff or paid) at the West Campus in Katy.
The article does state that 2nd is fully cooperating with investigators & that anyone at the church that volunteers/works with children must undergo a background check every 2 years.

I also heard recently that Second has replaced large swaths of whatever is left of their bylaws with the bylaws at Ed Junior's church. Copied and pasted.

Trial set for April 29.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/religion/article/southern-baptist-members-decision-21235185.php

Second Baptist Church lawsuit dismissed.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/2026/07/second-baptist-houston-lawsuit-dismissed-ed-young/

I was surprised to see Grant Dorman's name in the article, but apparently he was appointed to a newly created 11th "Business Court."

Interesting, but Jeremiah Counsel's statement differs from Christianity Today's statement. The biggest difference is JC says that the judge ruled that the meeting called was OK, but that they didn't amend the bylaws correctly, while CT says the bylaws are OK. Partial JC statement below...


Judge Grant Dorfman issued his rulings on the Motions heard on February 4 and 5, 2026. Some of these rulings are in our favor but, unfortunately, not all. The Judge ruled that Jeremiah Counsel has associational standing to bring this lawsuit. The Judge also ruled that the Defendants did not comply with Texas law regarding the manner in which to amend the Articles of Incorporation and, therefore, the Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation voted on by the members at the May 31, 2023 meeting is NOT valid. The Judge also recognized that JCC has the right to pursue an accounting of the books and records of Second Baptist Church.




Unfortunately, the Judge ruled that the Notice for the Members Meeting regarding amendments to the Bylaws to be voted on by the members on May 31, 2023, was proper. The basis for his ruling was his interpretation of the applicable TBOC provision is that Texas law only requires churches to give oral notice of a meeting, and not the time, place or purpose of the meeting. He then further held that the Defendants' use of the term "biblical" invoked the Church Autonomy Doctrine. In essence, the decision holds that the use of "biblical" insulates the Defendants' actions from any and all statutory and common law principles or claims.




The Judge then found there is no conflict between the 1928 Charter and the "new" 2023 Amended Bylaws. Texas law states that if a provision in a bylaw is "inconsistent" with the Articles, then the Articles prevail. It is not clear from the opinion what evidence the Judge used to determine there are no inconsistencies. We believe there are clear inconsistencies, including that the "new" 2023 Amended Bylaws provide that the initial Ministry Leadership Team (the new name for the Church's Board of Trustees) are appointed, but the Articles clearly state the Directors are elected. We will likely seek further clarification from the Court on this issue.




Contrary to what the Young Group has stated, the case is not over. The Judge's decision is interlocutory, meaning it did not dispose of all of the issues. Thus JCC intends to continue with the accounting claim, and demonstrate how the rights under the Articles have been wrongfully abridged by the "new" Bylaws. Once the case is finally decided, JCC will appeal that the opinion does not properly apply the Church Autonomy Doctrine.

FourAggies said:

---

Interesting, but Jeremiah Counsel's statement differs from Christianity Today's statement. The biggest difference is JC says that the judge ruled that the meeting called was OK, but that they didn't amend the bylaws correctly, while CT says the bylaws are OK. Partial JC statement below...


Judge Grant Dorfman issued his rulings on the Motions heard on February 4 and 5, 2026. Some of these rulings are in our favor but, unfortunately, not all. The Judge ruled that Jeremiah Counsel has associational standing to bring this lawsuit. The Judge also ruled that the Defendants did not comply with Texas law regarding the manner in which to amend the Articles of Incorporation and, therefore, the Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation voted on by the members at the May 31, 2023 meeting is NOT valid. The Judge also recognized that JCC has the right to pursue an accounting of the books and records of Second Baptist Church.




Unfortunately, the Judge ruled that the Notice for the Members Meeting regarding amendments to the Bylaws to be voted on by the members on May 31, 2023, was proper. The basis for his ruling was his interpretation of the applicable TBOC provision is that Texas law only requires churches to give oral notice of a meeting, and not the time, place or purpose of the meeting. He then further held that the Defendants' use of the term "biblical" invoked the Church Autonomy Doctrine. In essence, the decision holds that the use of "biblical" insulates the Defendants' actions from any and all statutory and common law principles or claims.




The Judge then found there is no conflict between the 1928 Charter and the "new" 2023 Amended Bylaws. Texas law states that if a provision in a bylaw is "inconsistent" with the Articles, then the Articles prevail. It is not clear from the opinion what evidence the Judge used to determine there are no inconsistencies. We believe there are clear inconsistencies, including that the "new" 2023 Amended Bylaws provide that the initial Ministry Leadership Team (the new name for the Church's Board of Trustees) are appointed, but the Articles clearly state the Directors are elected. We will likely seek further clarification from the Court on this issue.




Contrary to what the Young Group has stated, the case is not over. The Judge's decision is interlocutory, meaning it did not dispose of all of the issues. Thus JCC intends to continue with the accounting claim, and demonstrate how the rights under the Articles have been wrongfully abridged by the "new" Bylaws. Once the case is finally decided, JCC will appeal that the opinion does not properly apply the Church Autonomy Doctrine.

---

Difference is probably because the title of the article in the hyperlink is incorrect, and the lawsuit was not dismissed. The article doesn't even say the lawsuit was dismissed. Cross motions on various claims; some granted, some denied (scroll to pgs 38/39 for quick rundown (though this may effectively 'end' a lot of things; but it appears there are still some disputes remaining, or at least ability to get the accounting).

https://www.christianitytoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Opinion-and-Order_0F24B188.pdf

FourAggies said:

---

Interesting, but Jeremiah Counsel's statement differs from Christianity Today's statement. The biggest difference is JC says that the judge ruled that the meeting called was OK, but that they didn't amend the bylaws correctly, while CT says the bylaws are OK. Partial JC statement below...


Judge Grant Dorfman issued his rulings on the Motions heard on February 4 and 5, 2026. Some of these rulings are in our favor but, unfortunately, not all. The Judge ruled that Jeremiah Counsel has associational standing to bring this lawsuit. The Judge also ruled that the Defendants did not comply with Texas law regarding the manner in which to amend the Articles of Incorporation and, therefore, the Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation voted on by the members at the May 31, 2023 meeting is NOT valid. The Judge also recognized that JCC has the right to pursue an accounting of the books and records of Second Baptist Church.




Unfortunately, the Judge ruled that the Notice for the Members Meeting regarding amendments to the Bylaws to be voted on by the members on May 31, 2023, was proper. The basis for his ruling was his interpretation of the applicable TBOC provision is that Texas law only requires churches to give oral notice of a meeting, and not the time, place or purpose of the meeting. He then further held that the Defendants' use of the term "biblical" invoked the Church Autonomy Doctrine. In essence, the decision holds that the use of "biblical" insulates the Defendants' actions from any and all statutory and common law principles or claims.




The Judge then found there is no conflict between the 1928 Charter and the "new" 2023 Amended Bylaws. Texas law states that if a provision in a bylaw is "inconsistent" with the Articles, then the Articles prevail. It is not clear from the opinion what evidence the Judge used to determine there are no inconsistencies. We believe there are clear inconsistencies, including that the "new" 2023 Amended Bylaws provide that the initial Ministry Leadership Team (the new name for the Church's Board of Trustees) are appointed, but the Articles clearly state the Directors are elected. We will likely seek further clarification from the Court on this issue.




Contrary to what the Young Group has stated, the case is not over. The Judge's decision is interlocutory, meaning it did not dispose of all of the issues. Thus JCC intends to continue with the accounting claim, and demonstrate how the rights under the Articles have been wrongfully abridged by the "new" Bylaws. Once the case is finally decided, JCC will appeal that the opinion does not properly apply the Church Autonomy Doctrine.

---

Have a cite to article so I can read it all?

This came from an email to people who signed up to follow the process via Jeremiah Counsel's website. I just looked at the website and while they have their press releases, it looks like they don't have their email releases in the library

Here's the last piece of the email....

The actual text of the First Amendment to the US Constitution provides:




Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;




JCC believes stripping the members of Second Baptist of the long held right to vote, without telling the members, is not an action that the 1st Amendment protects.




JCC thanks you for your continued support as we continue to try to right this wrong.



Yours in Christ,

Jeremiah Counsel Corporation

https://www.jeremiahcounsel.org/

TonyD33 said:

---

Marvin_Zindler said:

---

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

FourAggies said:

---

Interesting, but Jeremiah Counsel's statement differs from Christianity Today's statement. The biggest difference is JC says that the judge ruled that the meeting called was OK, but that they didn't amend the bylaws correctly, while CT says the bylaws are OK. Partial JC statement below...


Judge Grant Dorfman issued his rulings on the Motions heard on February 4 and 5, 2026. Some of these rulings are in our favor but, unfortunately, not all. The Judge ruled that Jeremiah Counsel has associational standing to bring this lawsuit. The Judge also ruled that the Defendants did not comply with Texas law regarding the manner in which to amend the Articles of Incorporation and, therefore, the Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation voted on by the members at the May 31, 2023 meeting is NOT valid. The Judge also recognized that JCC has the right to pursue an accounting of the books and records of Second Baptist Church.




Unfortunately, the Judge ruled that the Notice for the Members Meeting regarding amendments to the Bylaws to be voted on by the members on May 31, 2023, was proper. The basis for his ruling was his interpretation of the applicable TBOC provision is that Texas law only requires churches to give oral notice of a meeting, and not the time, place or purpose of the meeting. He then further held that the Defendants' use of the term "biblical" invoked the Church Autonomy Doctrine. In essence, the decision holds that the use of "biblical" insulates the Defendants' actions from any and all statutory and common law principles or claims.




The Judge then found there is no conflict between the 1928 Charter and the "new" 2023 Amended Bylaws. Texas law states that if a provision in a bylaw is "inconsistent" with the Articles, then the Articles prevail. It is not clear from the opinion what evidence the Judge used to determine there are no inconsistencies. We believe there are clear inconsistencies, including that the "new" 2023 Amended Bylaws provide that the initial Ministry Leadership Team (the new name for the Church's Board of Trustees) are appointed, but the Articles clearly state the Directors are elected. We will likely seek further clarification from the Court on this issue.




Contrary to what the Young Group has stated, the case is not over. The Judge's decision is interlocutory, meaning it did not dispose of all of the issues. Thus JCC intends to continue with the accounting claim, and demonstrate how the rights under the Articles have been wrongfully abridged by the "new" Bylaws. Once the case is finally decided, JCC will appeal that the opinion does not properly apply the Church Autonomy Doctrine.

---

Difference is probably because the title of the article in the hyperlink is incorrect, and the lawsuit was not dismissed. The article doesn't even say the lawsuit was dismissed. Cross motions on various claims; some granted, some denied (scroll to pgs 38/39 for quick rundown (though this may effectively 'end' a lot of things; but it appears there are still some disputes remaining, or at least ability to get the accounting).

https://www.christianitytoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Opinion-and-Order_0F24B188.pdf

---

In fairness, Christianity Today is a hollow shell of what it once was. The entire outfit is run by leftists.

---

Meaning that they are not as Trumpy as you'd like? Somewhere to the left of Tucker? Fox News?

---

If you consider the morality of Trump, not the politician, but morality, the Church has become Trumpy, but that isn't what you were going for.

AgLiving06 said:

---

What the feedback on Second Baptist's school?

It's been the hot school for people to want to transfer to. Curious why?

---

I guess some people just like to blow $30k a year on their kid.

As far as the lawsuit stuff, I don't think anyone should be surprised. I know very little about 2nd Baptist, but always felt the Youngs were crooked, or at least not in it for the right reasons.

Some of our kids attended the university model school until they kicked out all the big Catholic families…(essentially).

Why? They created a rule that the entire family (all school and kids) had to go there. You couldn't send some kids there and others do schooling elsewhere.

So all the big Catholic families were especially affected. We weren't going to let 2nd Baptist tell us that their school is the best option for every child.

Really dumb move. They lost like 20-30 + kids that would have re-enrolled otherwise.

Now I hear that they won't even have enough kids to have any athletics for middle or high school anymore.

Quote:

---

Why you should care about the Second Baptist Houston lawsuit
Mark Wingfield | July 27, 2026

A Houston megachurch has been in the news due to member concerns about the ways its bylaws were amended and governance was effectively removed from the congregation and entrusted to a small group handpicked by the senior pastor.

While this may seem like a distant and difficult thing to connect with your own church, the lessons here are shockingly relevant to all Baptist churches.

I'm neither a lawyer nor the son of a lawyer, but I have been a church executive pastor and immediately spotted red flags when reading the recent court ruling dismissing all charges against the Second Baptist leadership team.

In short, what happened at Second Baptist Houston which is about as un-Baptist as you get could happen at your church too.

Trustees and revisions
While most Baptist churches exercise a pure form of congregational governance all significant business matters must be voted on by the congregation at large more than a few entrust some decision-making to a smaller group elected by the church. These are sometimes called trustees, sometimes called a church council or sometimes called a board of deacons.

That distinction matters hugely in the Second Baptist Houston case because some level of power was entrusted to a small group of trustees, which was easier to take over than the entire congregation.

A second factor in Houston is the distinction between a church's articles of incorporation and bylaws. These are two separate legal documents and please for the love of all that's holy make sure your church is incorporated.

The Texas court made clear that legally the articles of incorporation supersede the bylaws, which is most relevant if the articles outline how the bylaws may be amended or trustees elected.

Ecclesial abstention once again
The disgruntled members at Second Baptist thought they had a compelling case because church leaders did not follow Texas law on managing a nonprofit corporation. And they were right about that, but it didn't matter for two reasons: The wording of the articles of incorporation and the existence of a legal idea known as the ecclesial abstention doctrine.

The latter idea is that the First Amendment prevents secular courts from intervening in internal church disputes that are "ecclesial" or doctrinal in nature. And in this case, the court gave wide berth to that doctrine, in part because church leaders claimed to make the governance changes they pushed in order to be a "biblical church."

No secular court in America is going to take sides on defining what is a "biblical church" even though what happened in Houston should in no way be construed as representing a Baptist church.

To define a "biblical church" requires reading and interpreting Scripture, which is fraught enough for theologians, much less judges.

What was surprising to me in the court's ruling is how extensively it relied on the ecclesial abstention doctrine to reject ruling on any part of the case. I thought the challenging church members organized under the name Jeremiah Counsel might have some leverage on the purely secular act of calling a meeting and amending bylaws.

Key facts of the case
The court summarized the main question as this: "Did defendants validly amend the church's governing documents to remove the members' historic right to vote for the senior pastor and board members of their choice?"

Here are the basic facts of the case, as described by the court:

• "Second Baptist Church was founded in 1928 as a Texas nonprofit corporation. For several decades, the church operated under the 1928 Articles of Incorporation that created a Board of Trustees and, since at least 2005, it has adopted bylaws pursuant to the Articles."
• "The Articles were amended once, in 1978, and until the 2023 vote was held, it was these amended articles that constituted the church's certificate of formation."
• "It is undisputed that, under this framework, the church operated with a representative governance structure that vested significant voting rights in the individual church members, including the right to approve or reject material changes to the corporate bylaws."
• "Sometime in early 2023, the individual defendants initiated a process to amend the church's governing documents. (Jeremiah Counsel) alleges this move was a departure from decades of selfless leadership designed to consolidate power within a specific group namely, the defendants in a manner plaintiff believes to be detrimental to the congregation's historical oversight role."
• "This process culminated in late May 2023. On May 30, the church Board of Trustees met and voted unanimously to approve amendments to the Articles of Incorporation and the First Amended and Restated Bylaws of Second Baptist Church and to recommend their adoption to the congregation."
• "On the evening of May 31, 2023, the church called a 'church business meeting' to vote on these amendments. Defendants had previously provided notice of this meeting on four occasions: twice in the weekly church newsletter circulated via email on May 19 and 26, and by oral announcement made during regularly scheduled weekend worship services on May 21 and 28, at each of the church's six locations. The meeting notice stated: 'We have a meeting Wednesday night, May 31, at 6 p.m. in the Woodway Fellowship Hall. The church will have a call (sic) church business meeting to update our bylaws, to protect our ability to continue operating as a biblical church."
• "Defendants contend that a 'clear' and 'overwhelming' majority voted by a show of hands to approve both the amended articles and bylaws. The votes tallied 315-2 in favor of approving both sets of amendments."

Please note that in a church with a reported membership of 94,000, only 317 people voted at the called church conference. This lack of interest in attending to the business of the church is one of the reasons authoritarian pastors can so easily take control.

Key changes made
Among the changes made by then-Pastor Ed Young and his closely held group of trustees were removing all member voting rights to elect the senior pastor, board members, officers and committee members and the right to vote on amendments to governing documents, approve expenditures and certain business dealing

The changes to governing documents created a self-perpetuating board called the Ministry Leadership Team that is made up of the senior pastor and a few others chosen by the senior pastor.

And this line, shocking as it may sound to Baptist ears, comes straight from the court record: "The right to elect the senior pastor belongs solely to the senior pastor; and the MLT's ability to remove the senior pastor is circumscribed."

In short, the changes abolished congregational votes on anything of importance, abolished the role of trustees and granted all decision-making and budgetary decisions to the senior pastor.

Anyone with a sense of Baptist history can understand why some church members sued to stop the pastoral takeover. But they failed in their lawsuit, and that's why this case matters to every other Baptist church that values congregational governance.

Lessons for others
There's a lot of legal language in the court's full ruling, and anyone who wants may go read that. One of the key lessons is that the articles of incorporation at Second Baptist Houston were not as specific as they should have been, particularly about how trustees were to be elected.

As nonprofit corporations, churches must abide by their governing documents, to the extent those governing documents do not require theological interpretation. Thus, it is wise to draft documents that are explicit in their terms and that do not include theological language.

All governing documents of a church should be explicit in outlining the process required to change those documents. That is the bedrock lesson here.

What has transpired at Second Baptist Houston is not unique. In fact, it was taken from a playbook published by Edwin Young's other son, also named Ed Young, and his Dallas megachurch. You can buy and download this blueprint for gaining full pastoral control.

If the right people have not reviewed your church's articles of incorporation and bylaws lately, now is a good time for a check-up. Look into what happened at Second Baptist Houston and reverse engineer it to protect congregational governance.

---

https://baptistnews.com/article/why-you-should-care-about-the-second-baptist-houston-lawsuit/

I didn't read all that, but it wouldn't make me care.

ccolley68 said:

---

sts7049 said:

---

seems like it further confirms the obvious - families who run these megachurches are nothing but slimy grifters

---

Just changes Righteous Gemstones from fictional comedy to documentary

---

Righteous Gemstones was a guilty pleasure in our house. We were in an SBC church, and it hit the nail on the head in so many ways. It was for the mega church what Don't Look Up and Idiocracy were for the broader culture - satire just a little too close for comfort at times.