by SLyons » Fri May 08, 2009 10:32 am
Steve says: "9. The blogger(s) failed to use proper means to invoke change in the church government."
Let's talk about how change is wrought in First Baptist Church. Let's talk about "proper means" of invoking change.
Were the bylaws changes of November 2007 the "proper means"?
As you may or may not know, the bylaw changes of November 28, 2007, significantly changed the governance of the church. They were presented to the church as being insignificant changes, minor changes, not worthy of even reading before voting on them. They were never, ever explained, or read, or characterized, or summarized to the congregation before asking them to vote. Very interesting. Judge Soud read his deacon's resolution slamming the blogger and warning potential church critics...he even DISPLAYED IT ON THE IMAGE SCREENS so the people could read along with him as he read it. But they chose NOT to read or display the church bylaw changes that were going to significantly change the member's rights in the church. You just have to sit back and admire and applaud such audacity. It is a sight to behold.
You say: "well, that is how we always did it". or "when Vines changed the bylaws in 2000 we didn't read them or explain them to the congregation". So what. Why live in the past?
But these bylaw changes in November 2007, Steve, did four things affecting the member's rights:
1. The finance committee was dissolved. The members of the finance committee were brought into the larger circle of "trustees", that are nominated by the pastor, and confirmed by the congregation by an all or nothing up or down vote. And by the way, William, there is not a personnel committee in the bylaws. The pastor makes those decisions.
2. They removed the congregation's right to call for a special business meeting with 1000 signatures - this effectively eliminates even the slimmest of possibilities that the church could call for a vote of confidence on the pastor. Now, the one and only possible way for a special business meeting to be called to call for a vote of confidence is for the Trustees to approve it - the trustees are appointed by the pastor. Not even the deacons can do it now. That is dangerous stuff, Steve - not that a special busienss meeting called by the congregation would have ever happened, but to remove that from even being a possibility can empower a pastor who happens to be power hungry to abuse his power knowing his congregation is totally POWERLESS. Having that in the bylaws served a purpose, even if it was never exercised.
3. the bylaw changes created a discipline committee that defines specifically how members are to bring grievances to the church, and defines a revised process on how church members are disciplined for misconduct.
4. The bylaw changes added a clause that all members forfeit their right to bring any legal action against the church. "All member waive the right to file any legal action against the Church ina civil court or agency".
Number 4. is interesting...they had no problem going to "civil agencies" of the JSO and state attorney to find the identity of the blogger. But if a member sues the church in a civil court, well they would be voted out for misconduct.
So Steve, you can chill on the claim that the blogger was making everyone's hackles stand on end. What should have made EVERYONE'S hackles stand on end is the manner in which our bylaws were significantly changed in a manner to minimize the knowledge of the change amongst the body. Those changes should have been read and explained to the congregation PRIOR to a vote being taken, and you know it Steve.