Navigating the Controversy: The Second Baptist Candidate at the Crossroads of Servant Leadership and Congregational Disenfranchisement

Second Baptist Candidate? Servant leader? or a Disenfranchisement Deacon who hails from the same church that would abolish the votes of its own congregation?

I entered the US congressional election race for Wesley Hunt’s vacated seat in the Texas 38th district this month with naïve enthusiasm. However, just days into my foray I learned one of the candidates had already received nearly $500,000 in donations and the endorsement of one of the state’s most powerful and influential republicans. So, it seems, even as the race had barely begun, the powers that be have already pre-ordained their Second Baptist candidate before the voice of the voters would be heard.

To say the least, I was perplexed and disenchanted especially given our electoral successes in 2024 driven by true voters, and new voters, in our great and growing republican party. But then I saw a connection that helped to explain this disturbing sort of voter disenfranchisement, if you will.

I went back to the preordained successor’s campaign web site and the first words I saw were: “A true servant leader for the TX-38.” The website goes on to vaguely explain that this candidates’ claim to be a “True Servant Leader” emanates from his being ordained as a Deacon at Second Baptist Church. Yes, this is the same institution whose “servant leaders’ are currently being sued for, (wait for it):

“…abolishing church members' rights to vote, installing an unelected and unaccountable board, and concentrating almost all power, including the power to select the future church Pastor, in the Pastor alone.”

So now I had to wonder whether this chosen candidate had even read Robert Greenleaf’s 1970 essay wherein he coined the term “Servant Leadership.” Well before that, the Gospel declared: “And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.” (Gospel of Mark — Mark 10:44). I, for one, took that Gospel to heart, embraced it during the decades of my public service, and have even taught this concept to other up and coming police leaders. With that background in mind, I am even more unsettled by the power-hungry hypocrisy of the Second Baptists leaders in the governance of their own congregation. Even more troublesome is the seemingly similar preordained nature of Mr. Bonck’s “servant leader” campaign and “heir apparent” status he seems to have assumed, and that his establishment and church allies seem to have assured to their latest chosen one.

See also:

Lawsuit claims illegal power consolidation at Second Bapt. Houston

More accusations fly at Second Baptist Houston

Second Baptist accused of censoring staff emails amid corruption lawsuit

Read more excerpts from the Second Baptist lawsuit below or the full petition at this link:

“Unfortunately, in 2023, H. Edwin Young became determined to secure the ascendance of his son, Ben Young, to H. Edwin Young's position as Senior Pastor to Second Baptist's 94,000 congregants. In doing so, H. Edwin Young and others circumvented the democratic processes which had long been observed under existing church Bylaws for 95 years. This move was not merely about family succession. It was also about consolidating power and control over church governance and church assets. H. Edwin Young collaborated with close allies -- including Ben Young, Lee Maxcyand Dennis Brewer, Jr. -- to orchestrate undisclosed and unvetted amendments to the Bylaws at Second Baptist. The represented and ostensible purpose for these amendments was to clarify thechurch's beliefs, and to reinforce its stance on social issues such as marriage and family, in responseto the "woke agenda." However, the true objective for the amendments was to radically alter Second Baptist's long-observed democratic governance processes -- and to eliminate the congregants' voice in church matters in its entirety - by, e.g., abolishing church members' rights to vote, installing an unelected and unaccountable board, and concentrating almost all power, including the power to select the future church Pastor, in the Pastor alone.”

In Summary Jeremiah Counsel claims:

· ​On Memorial Day weekend 2023, H. Edwin Young “sent a cryptic email to the membership. Buried near the end of that 2023 holiday weekend email, Dr. Ed Young announced a church business meeting for the following Wednesday, to ‘update our bylaws to protect our ability to continue operating as a biblical church.’”

· That email “disguised a campaign by church leadership to facilitate an illegitimate vote, by approximately 200 of the 90,000 members, to approve new bylaws ostensibly to ‘protect the church from the woke agenda,’ but which were actually intended to strip all members of their right to vote, forever, without them knowing what was happening.”

· Despite Ben Young’s claim that church trustees “unanimously approved the new bylaws,” trustees received the draft of the revised bylaws just 48 hours before the meeting, over Memorial Day weekend. They were never told the changes would eliminate member voting.”

· One trustee specifically asked for the May 31 meeting to be postponed so trustees would have more time to evaluate what was proposed in the new bylaws. His request was denied.

· “No one received the bylaws in writing and no mention was made that the vote would permanently strip member voting rights.”

· “The provision removing voting rights was a single sentence that was buried in a section on Marriage and Family, never disclosed to members, and never explained before the vote.”

· “Members can no longer see the financial audit, a right they had for decades. There is no independent board elected by the congregation.”

· Reading the current bylaws is allowed “by appointment only, under supervision, with no copies or photos allowed.”

· The new Ministry Leadership Team “is composed of family, paid staff and loyal affiliates, all handpicked by Pastor Young. Not only that, but the bylaws also give the senior pastor the ability to have two votes to break a tie.”