Pastor renews call for change in messenger-seating challenges

image_pdfimage_print

ATHENS—An East Texas pastor who proposed a process to change how the Baptist General Convention of Texas handles messenger-seating challenges plans to bring up the issue again at the convention’s annual meeting in McAllen, Nov. 8-9.

Kyle Henderson, pastor of First Baptist Church in Athens, made a motion at last year’s meeting to amend the BGGT bylaws to create a process to deal with messenger-seating challenges in advance of the annual meeting.

At the 2009 Baptist General Convention of Texas annual meeting, Kyle Henderson, pastor of First Baptist Church in Athens, introduced a motion to establish a process requiring advance notice of any messenger-seating challenge. (BGCT FILE PHOTO)

His recommendation was referred to the BGCT Executive Board, and the board created an ad hoc study committee chaired by Bob Fowler of Houston. When the study committee brought its recommendation to the board’s Sept. 28 meeting, the Executive Board overwhelmingly rejected it.

“I was disappointed with the lack of action by the Executive Board and intend on making a renewed motion at the annual meeting this year and resisting any effort for it to be referred back to the Executive Board,” Henderson said.

 

Proposed changes

Henderson’s proposed bylaws revision would have required any messenger who wanted to challenge the seating of another messenger to make “a good faith effort” to contact that messenger’s church at least 18 days before the annual meeting.

He further proposed that a statement of intent to challenge seating be presented to the BGCT credentials committee at least one week prior to the meeting.

According to Henderson’s proposal, the credentials committee would have to await an official vote of the church whose messenger was challenged before bringing a report to the convention floor to seat or unseat anyone.


Sign up for our weekly edition and get all our headlines in your inbox on Thursdays


The study committee presented a modified proposal, because it felt Henderson’s recommended process would have mandated a church respond to allegations made by any messenger, Fowler told the Executive Board.

The committee’s recommendation said, in part: “Any messenger intending to challenge the seating of another messenger should verify the grounds upon which such a challenge is being made. At least two weeks in advance of the convening of a meeting of the convention, the challenging messenger should present the challenge to the Committee on Credentials, including steps taken to verify the basis of the challenge. …”

The committee’s proposal also allowed for challenges to be presented to the credentials committee any time prior to its report to the annual meeting, but it said “adequate time should be afforded the committee to consider a challenge, including time to communicate with the challenged messenger and the messenger’s church and to permit an appropriate response to be received.”

 

Bylaw questions

When the board discussed the study committee recommendation, Van Christian, pastor of First Baptist Church of Comanche, noted his appreciation for the original intent of the proposal, but he asserted the recommendation from the committee would have violated the BGCT constitution and bylaws.

The only requirement for a messenger is that he or she be duly elected by an affiliated church, and he said the proposal would have put the credentials committee in the position of determining if a church is in good standing with the convention.

In a subsequent interview, Christian elaborated on his position. He pointed specifically to the language of the constitution saying the convention in session is composed of “messengers elected by Baptist churches that shall voluntarily cooperate with the convention.”

The bylaws—which indicate the terms “supportive,” “cooperating” and “affiliated” are interchangeable in the governing documents—stipulate two criteria for affiliation. If a church “identifies itself with, aligns itself with, and endorses, generally, the purposes and work of the convention” and if it is otherwise eligible to send messengers, then the church is affiliated with the BGCT.

Bylaws also spell out the duties of the credentials committee as being “responsible for verifying credentials of prospective messengers, enrolling messengers, for investigating any contention arising out of the enrollment of messengers, and for reporting its findings to the convention.”

Christian objected because he believed the motion the board considered granted more authority to the credentials committee than is permitted in the convention’s governing documents.

“The point I made at the Executive Board session,” he said, “was that according to these statements, the only thing that the credentials committee can verify is that a messenger is a member of, and has been duly elected by, a church voluntarily cooperating with the convention and has presented the appropriate credentials at the meeting. Any contention arising out of prospective messengers can only be investigated by the credentials committee to this extent.

“Questions as to the determination of the relationship of a church to the convention based on other matters, and the determination of whether such church is in cooperation with the convention, must be addressed by the convention in annual meeting or by the executive board in interim, as has been our history.

“The proposed document gave the authority to the credentials committee to make such a determination and report to the convention. I cannot see how any reading of the constitution and bylaws could grant them such authority.”

Fowler, an attorney and member of South Main Baptist Church in Houston, agreed the credentials committee’s job is limited to determining that every prospective messenger was duly elected by a BGCT-affiliated church—not determining whether a congregation should qualify as affiliated, he said.

“I think that Robert’s Rules, at least, permit any messenger to challenge the seating of any other messenger. However, a reading of our governance documents, as they were revised and restated less than 10 years ago, would seem to support Van’s interpretation of the limited criteria necessary to send valid messengers to the annual meeting.

“Does that mean that Kyle’s assertion that BGCT’s processes and procedures permit any messenger to challenge the seating of any other messenger? I think Kyle is right, at least from a historical Texas Baptist tradition, although the current constitutional and bylaw provisions might bode otherwise.”

Fowler sees both the original recommendation and the committee’s proposal as conflicting with the BGCT constitution and bylaws. The credentials committee “does not exist to be an arbiter of church affiliation qualifications.” he said.

“Therefore, I have become persuaded that Kyle Henderson’s and my own committee’s recommendations each go down the wrong path under our governance documents. They each could have the unfortunate result of stirring up challenges on doctrinal and church practice issues that are better left to the governing bodies as a part of orderly consideration,” he said.

Both the original proposal and the study committee recommendation “were honestly seeking to improve the fairness of a process that perhaps should not really exist,” Fowler concluded.

 

Biblical process

Henderson emphasized he wants to improve the tone of business at BGCT annual meetings, as well as making sure the state convention follows biblical procedures when conflicts arise. He noted he chairs a committee that is recommending significant changes in the BGCT annual meeting format to increase participation.

“This process will be undermined if we do not change some of the basics of our meeting. It has to get less political, less adversarial and more Christlike,” he said.

The motion he presented at last year’s annual meeting essentially follows the teaching of Jesus recorded in Matthew 18 in regard to conflict resolution among Christians, he insisted.

“It says go individually first, then with others, and only then take the grievance to the large group. Our process of challenging messengers at the annual meeting is not biblical, it is not kind, and it is divisive. Requiring someone to give notice before challenging another church’s messengers is polite, at the very least,” he said.

“It is not in conflict with our bylaws, but even if it were, when the ways of Jesus are at odds with our rules, then our rules should change. We can’t blame our rules. We make the rules.”

 

Speaking from experience

Henderson noted he and the other pastors involved in crafting the original proposal last year examined the minutes of five annual meetings when the BGCT voted not to seat messengers. On at least one occasion, a messenger recommended a change to the messenger-challenge process, he added.

Speaking from personal experience, Henderson recalled serving on the credentials committee several years ago.

“We were told people were planning to challenge the seating of messengers from a church. The people were never identified. The committee prepared for a coming anonymous storm,” he said.

“Last year, the credentials committee was told that a churches’ messengers would be challenged, though they were never told who would make the challenge. The committee formulated a response plan of action. This is already our process.”

Concern last year focused on Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth . The Southern Baptist Convention had severed ties with the church on the basis of its perceived acceptance of homosexual members.

Broadway Baptist decided just prior to the 2009 BGCT annual meeting not to send messengers, rather than risk a challenge. Last month, the church voted to approve a statement indicating it was severing its relationship with the BGCT.

Henderson insisted he couldn’t understand why his motion, which mandated a church respond to allegations made by any messenger, was considered inappropriate.

“Our process and procedures allow any messenger to challenge any church’s messengers. This is already in place,” he said.

“What my motion does is take appropriate steps to ensure any challenge to messengers would be given to that church before the annual meeting so that the church had opportunity to hear the charges against them and have opportunity to respond. Our ecclesiology indicates that only a church can speak for a church—a pastor does not, the deacon chairman does not. We do not elect delegates; we elect messengers. Therefore, the only authorized body to solve a charge leveled at a church is the church voting in business session. Its messy, but it is what makes us Baptist.”

Under the current system, any messenger could be recognized at a microphone at the annual meeting and challenge the messengers from any church, he added. The matter would then be referred to the credentials committee.

The committee “would have to make their recommendation without consulting the church that is being challenged. This is a clear violation of our core beliefs about the authority of the church,” he said.

“As the process stands now we have to work with hearsay and accusations, not deliberative information and truth. My motion would change the process, protect churches from unwarranted and unfounded accusations, mirror the Jesus model of conflict resolution, and take our inner debates off the front page of the paper when we try to deliberate in public what can only be solved in private.”

 


We seek to connect God’s story and God’s people around the world. To learn more about God’s story, click here.

Send comments and feedback to Eric Black, our editor. For comments to be published, please specify “letter to the editor.” Maximum length for publication is 300 words.

More from Baptist Standard