Month: June 2015

Texas Gov. signs Pastor Protection bill

AUSTIN—Passage of the only surviving religious liberty bill in the 84th session of the Texas Legislature gives pastors some legal protection against litigation should they refuse to preside over a same-sex marriage. Senate Bill 2065, the Pastor Protection bill, passed overwhelmingly May 21 and was signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott June 11.

SB 2065 passed the House of Representatives 141-2 on its second reading, garnering even the support of two gay representatives. On its third reading the next day, it passed unanimously, 142-0, earning the votes of its two earlier opponents.

The bill ensures clergy and churches cannot be compelled by the government to solemnize or facilitate a wedding that is in conflict with their deeply held religious convictions. The law also provides legal standing for them if sued for refusing to perform a wedding.

During the second reading of the bill May 21 questions on the House floor to Rep. Scott Sanford, R-McKinney, sponsor of the Pastor Protection bill, reflected some misunderstandings of the problems SB 2065 seeks to forestall.

Rep. Terry Canales, D-Edinburgh, repeatedly asked Sanford if any clergy, to date, had been forced, against their religious convictions, to marry anyone or if they had been prosecuted for failure to do so. His questions indicated he saw no immediate threat to clergy. Canales, along with Rep. Armando Walle, D-Houston, voted against the bill May 21.

“Rep. Canales, I would certainly say there are repercussions that pastors are experiencing today,” said Sanford, a pastor at Cotton Creek Baptist Church. “Pastors came in droves to the capitol to testify for this bill because they sense a need for it.”

The Pastor Protection bill received the support of two gay lawmakers and other supporters of same-sex marriage, but their support was not without affirmation of same-sex marriage and nuanced statements aimed at their ideological and political opponents.

Cecelia Israel, D-Austin, one of two gay lawmakers to support the bill, said she supported it as a reiteration of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution “which is a respect for religion,” not because of the legal cover its authors believe is needed in a post-marriage culture.

There was applause from the House gallery as representatives cast their votes in favor of the bill.

Messengers encouraged to take to the microphones_x009d_ over IMB policy changes

COLUMBUS—Southern Baptists have their own version of an October surprise—those last-minute issues that make politicians anxious prior to a November election—only ours is in May, preceding our annual meeting. Topics have ranged from a Muslim student’s admission to a Southern Baptist seminary, sale of the gender-neutral NIV translation in SBC-connected bookstores, and the platform given to Mark Driscoll at another SBC seminary. These are only a few of the issues that cause a buzz among messengers at recent annual meetings.

Whatever issue has been in the news the month prior to the Southern Baptist Convention gathering often spawns resolutions, motions submitted by messengers, and often questions asked from the floor. With tight control of what resolutions make it out of committee, along with the likelihood that a motion will be referred to an SBC entity without further discussion, questioning an SBC entity action during the entity report remains one of the few means by which messengers can seek a direct answer from a trustee chairman or entity head.

As long as concerns are expressed with gracious civility, SBC President Ronnie Floyd is likely to allow time for discussion, based on comments he made to the TEXAN.

This year’s May surprise is apparently the International Mission Board’s recent decision to retract personnel policy changes enacted nine years ago that told practitioners of a private prayer language they need not apply and asked some immersed apart from SBC congregations to be baptized a second time to be eligible for missionary service. IMB President David Platt said expectations in line with the Baptist Faith & Message accompany every “pathway” to service, allowing leadership to evaluate and revise the expectations and qualifications “to continually strengthen them.” 

Other changes give flexibility for appointment of candidates with teenage children and those with a history of divorce by taking into consideration past circumstances and future locations where they might serve. Platt stated that this new model for evaluating candidates does nothing to lower the standards for IMB missionaries, but functionally serves to raise them. Stringent spiritual qualifications, clear Southern Baptist identity, good physical, emotional and mental health are also cited among expectations, Platt said, along with the need to model a godly family life and/or personal relationships.

Relating to those who have concerns about IMB changes, Floyd said “As a conservative resurgence veteran who helped with the charge toward our commitment to the Word of God and its principles, [questioners should] do so using those same principles in stating those and their questions.”

Floyd has placed the focus of the annual meeting on “clear agreement, visible union and extraordinary prayer” in following the theme of Great Awakening. Specifically in regard to those with questions and concerns about the revised IMB policies, he added, “As they [voice these], do so with love and respect for the trustee process,” reminding, “We are family.”

Former IMB trustee Lonnie Wascom of Louisiana is concerned that, “rather than ‘raising the bar’ of service,” the new policy “implies a ‘ya’ll come,’ lowering-of-the-bar openness.” He is calling on those who share his concern to contact IMB or offer a question on the floor in Columbus.

In fact, he’s even suggested how the question might be worded, asking, “Is it correct that a couple with multiple marriages, saved in a tradition such as the United Methodist church, baptized by any mode considered ‘meaningful’ to the candidate, who may also consider ecstatic utterance to be a normal manifestation of one’s salvation, will now be supported by the Cooperative Program and Lottie Moon Christmas Offering funds?”

Texas trustees who serve on the IMB have received little negative feedback from pastors and other Southern Baptists.

“It’s been quiet,” stated trustee John Meador of Euless. “I’ve not had anyone approach me with specific concerns.” Jay Gross of Conroe, Byron McWilliams of Odessa, June Richards of Keller, and Robert Welch of Brownsboro related similar experiences of little or no inquiries following the vote.

“I fielded a few questions early on, some negative,” McWilliams said. “However, I’ve also had a very fair amount extend their support for the changes.”

Trustee John Mann of Springtown described to the TEXAN a number of inquiries he received from fellow pastors he has known for years. “The questions seem to be ancillary to conversations regarding other, non-IMB related meetings,” he said. “I have not received as much personal correspondence as I expected.”

“The calls I have received have been more for clarification,” stated Nathan Lorick of Fort Worth. “I am in conversations hearing people excited about the changes as well as people concerned.”

Trustee Mike Simmons of Midlothian could not attend the May meeting, but has had some requests for clarification—primarily from church members at the Cedar Hill congregation he pastors.

“The expressions that I have received are of disagreement and concern about adopting a policy that has been dealt with extensively in previous years, and especially during the tenure of Dr. Jerry Rankin. The concern is that we are opening a door that will be difficult to close, and very well could create division within the convention, as well as, loss of support for the IMB.”

Wascom, who serves as director of missions for North Shore Baptist Association in Hammond, La., said he’s been inundated with texts, emails and calls from pastors and former trustees seeking help in framing their response to questions from church members. “Policies pertaining to the views and life experiences of candidates on believer’s baptism, glossolalia and divorce appear to be the ‘big three,’” he wrote in an open letter to this association recently.

Having chaired the trustee committee that crafted the policy on glossolalia, Wascom is the first to admit he’s not a passive observer. “My major concerns rest upon soteriology, ecclesiology and missiology,” he wrote, adding that the previous policies were established over a period of time with input from all Southern Baptist seminaries and lengthy conversations with field personnel. He fears “disunity and confusion in SBC life” will result, but prays he is incorrect.

Texas trustee Jaye Martin of Cypress missed the recent meeting due to illness, but felt the change was given serious discussion in the months prior to the vote. She has heard nothing but positive feedback to the decision.

“IMB is just aligning with BF&M,” she told the TEXAN. “Even before David Platt [came], we had been hearing lots from old and young about the policies—that we were not aligned with SBC ‘flexibility.’”

What James MacDonald and Matt Chandler Can Teach Us About Humility in Church Leadership

In the span of six weeks, two prominent megachurch pastors offered humble apologies for matters related to church government.

The first came in a blog post by James MacDonald, pastor of Harvest Bible Church in Chicago. MacDonald, who received criticism for a blog post four years ago that said congregationalism was from Satan, apologized April 16 for his “inflammatory,” “unbalanced,” and “unfair” analysis of churches who give final authority in decision-making to its members.

MacDonald says while he still holds to an elder-ruled church polity—not to be confused with elder-led churches, which still give final authority to members—he admits, “What has changed is my confidence that elder rule is a better protection against satanic attacks on a local church than congregational governance that attempts to be biblical in distributing authority among mature church members.”

Further, MacDonald says, he has realized that with both elder-ruled and congregational models, “The potential for damage to a church seems likely in both models if a lack of humility is resident in those participating in the governance.”

The second apology came from Matt Chandler, pastor of The Village Church in Dallas. After concerns related to several church discipline cases went public on news outlets and the blogosphere, Chandler told Christianity Today May 28 that elders at the Village Church were guilty of a “domineering” approach in some cases and that he would be publicly apologizing to his church the following Sunday morning.

“We have sinned against some people—and we are owning that before God and specifically before the people we have hurt,” Chandler said. He issued a lengthy, convincing apology during his sermon May 31.

I’m thankful for the humility by both of these men to own up to prideful comments and actions in such a public way. They did what was right and in the right way. I believe each of them to be sincere apologies.

Both of these scenarios are a striking reminder of the need for humility in the church. As Paul exhorts, “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,” (Philippians 2:3-5).

The relationship between church leadership and members can easily be fractured when we fail to reflect Christlike love and humility toward one another.

Likewise, the Apostle Peter exhorts elders to shepherd the flock that God has entrusted to them with carefulness and tenderness rather than compulsion and tyranny. He also urges church members to submit themselves to the elders’ care. (1 Peter 5:1-5). He concludes, “Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for ‘God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.’” Here, the call to humility is applied to both leaders and members.

Additionally, the scenarios with MacDonald and Chandler remind us to think critically about church government.

The church growth, or seeker-sensitive, movement of the 1990s encouraged churches to take a businesslike approach to leadership and structure, with CEO pastors steering the ship in a “more efficient” system that avoided the liabilities of too many hands in the decision-making pot (i.e., congregationalism). Even congregational churches that adopted this approach essentially relegated the members’ decision-making solely to approving a budget and calling a new senior pastor.

In recent years, more churches have adopted a plurality of elders as leadership. But, while I believe having elders is more biblically supported than the CEO-style of church leadership, I fear that some of the same “business principles” that guided the CEO model have filtered down into the elder model as well. For example, elder-ruled churches simply swap out the CEO for a board of trustees and minimize the biblical role of the congregation in matters of doctrine, membership, and discipline. (see Matthew 18:15-17; Acts 6:1-5; 1 Corinthians 5; 2 Corinthians 2:6-8; 2 Timothy 4:3). But even in elder-led, congregational churches, these business practices can find expression when elders overstep their authority, choosing control over compassion and policies over people.

Baptists have historically been advocates of both congregational polity and, prior to the 20th century, a plurality of elders (see Mark Dever’s By Whose Authority: Elders in Baptist Life). Even the first president of the Southern Baptist Convention, W.B. Johnson, spoke of this in his book The Gospel Developed. The two can co-exist provided both the elders and members exercise the humility of Christ.

But, ultimately, MacDonald is right—regardless of the model of church government (elder rule, elder led, single pastor, congregational, etc.), abuses abound when we do not demonstrate Christlike concern for and submission to one another. So, brothers and sisters, whichever camp you find yourself in, let’s practice this kind of humility and love. When we do, Christ will be glorified as the gospel is put on display to a watching world.

Pastor Protection bill passes in Texas House, Senate

Texas capitol building image

AUSTIN—Passage of the only surviving religious liberty bill in the 84th session of the Texas Legislature gives pastors some legal protection against litigation should they refuse to preside over a same-sex marriage. Senate Bill 2065, the Pastor Protection bill, passed overwhelmingly May 21.

With the U.S. Supreme Court poised to rule by the end of June on whether states must recognize same-sex marriage as a constitutionally protected right, conservative Texas legislators filed bills that would, if passed, provide legal standing for citizens, businesses and clergy against an anticipated wave of legal action. But the lack of support from state leadership and the legislators’ self-imposed censorship in the wake of protests at Indiana’s capitol in April left  stymied all other legislation that would have given a legal defense for those opposed, on religious grounds, to same-sex marriage.

The lone religious liberty bill to be debated, SB 2065, passed the House of Representatives 141-2 on its second reading, garnering even the support of two gay representatives. The next day it passed unanimously, 142-0, earning the votes of its two earlier opponents.  On May 25 it was sent to Gov. Greg Abbott who has said he would sign it.

The bill ensures clergy and churches cannot be compelled by the government to solemnize or facilitate a wedding that is in conflict with their deeply held religious convictions. The law also provides legal standing for them if sued for refusing to perform a wedding.

Although pleased with the passage of SB 2065, Cindy Asmussen, SBTC ethics and religious liberty advisor, said the lone bill does not provide legal cover for the multitude of scenarios legislators were trying to account for. The state’s RFRA statute gives a broad foundation upon which Texans can stand when defending their religious convictions but it does not provide the specific defense needed for a variety of situations, Asmussen and others argued. A statute, unlike an amendment, can be repealed by any subsequent legislature.

“It’s enough for the pastors and the clergy, but we want to protect all Texans,” said Rep. Matt Krause, R-Ft. Worth.

Asmussen, who spent weeks petitioning legislators to give serious consideration to religious liberty bills and the issues they seek to proactively address, lamented that legislators did not share her sense of urgency.

During the second reading of the bill May 21 questions on the House floor to Rep. Scott Sanford, R-McKinney, sponsor of the Pastor Protection bill, reflected some misunderstandings of the problems SB 2065 seeks to forestall.

Rep. Terry Canales, D-Edinburgh, repeatedly asked Sanford if any clergy, to date, had been forced, against their religious convictions, to marry anyone or if they had been prosecuted for failure to do so. His questions indicated he saw no immediate threat to clergy. Canales, along with Rep. Armando Walle, D-Houston, voted against the bill May 21.

“Rep. Canales, I would certainly say there are repercussions that pastors are experiencing today,” said Sanford, a pastor at Cotton Creek Baptist Church. “Pastors came in droves to the capitol to testify for this bill because they sense a need for it.”

Even with the Texas marriage law and the RFRA statute in force, pastors told Sanford they are being intimidated by LGBT activists and some pastors have been asked to perform same-sex marriages. He reminded the House of the subpoenaing of five Houston pastors for their opposition to a city ordinance giving civil liberty protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Pastor Protection bill received the support of two gay lawmakers and other supporters of same-sex marriage, but their support was not without affirmation of same-sex marriage and nuanced statements aimed at their ideological and political opponents.

“The unstated here is the LGBT community and, let me reassure those pastors out there, that some fine day my partner and I are going to be able to get married in the great state of Texas. The Supreme Court will hopefully take care of that issue for us. When that day comes, rest assured to those pastors and preachers who will take a more literal interpretation of the Bible that my partner and I of 20 years will not be going to them to bless our union,” said Cecelia Israel, D-Austin, one of two gay lawmakers to support the bill.

Israel said she supported the bill as a reiteration of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution “which is a respect for religion,” not because of the legal cover its authors believe is needed in a post-marriage culture.

Rep. Richard Pena Raymond, D-Laredo, (who, in his statement affirming the “good heart” of Rep. Scott Sanford, mistakenly referred to him as “Mark Sanford”) said society, in time would come around to accept same-sex marriage. When two “children of God” love each other they should have the right to marry, he concluded.

There was applause from the House gallery as representatives cast their votes in favor of the bill.