SPECIAL COMMENTARY

Well, Jerry Sutton finally got his way. After praying that "God's will be done" before the vote on May 4, on May 11 (at both services), he held a scripted "business session" in which he allowed a motion to be presented, seconded, and voted on by a show of hands which ruled that the votes of the 71 plaintiffs were not to be counted. This resulted in them being kicked out of TRBC in the eyes of the leadership. Never mind that God spoke clearly on May 4 that he wanted both groups to work this out. Never mind that the plaintiffs were open to pursuing reconciliation after the May 4 vote. The plaintiffs had not made a decision to file an appeal after the May 4 vote as you may have been told by those who "think" that they are "in the know". The plaintiffs were waiting to see how Jerry Sutton and the deacon leadership would react to this clear answer to prayer that "God's will be done". Well, we found out didn't we?

Jerry's will is more important than God's will apparently. Never mind that these "votes" on May 11 were by show of hands and that there were visitors in the pews. No votes were officially counted. No discussion was allowed. This "motion" is in direct violation of the church's own bylaws which state that "EVERY MEMBER OF THE CHURCH IS ENTITLED TO VOTE AT ALL ELECTIONS AND ON ALL QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE CHURCH". Roberts Rules of Order only apply when the bylaws are not specific about a subject. Jerry Sutton himself has stated on numerous occasions that the bylaws supercede RROO. The bylaws are very specific on the subject of the rights of members but they were ignored. This entire episode should tell everyone with an open mind what kind of people we have running Two Rivers Baptist Church.

Larry Crain, the church's attorney, claimed in the Tennessean on 05/12 that he just happened to be in the congregation and that he was "suprised" by the motion brought before the church on May 11 (read here), yet Carlos Cobos says on his latest blog entry that Larry Crain "provided legal counsel in this matter" (read here) and he suspected that "something might happen". Jerry Sutton's latest letter to the church states that he knew that a motion was going to be presented (read here). Jerry Sutton also claims that an announced vote was not held in order to prevent a "near riot" like happened on May 4. The church videos all events. Where is the video showing this "near riot" by the plaintiffs and their supporters? Could it be that there wasn't a "near riot" - just people who wanted to show their support to the accused? Was Larry Crain "suprised" or was he consulted beforehand? Which is it? Why did they have to pull this underhanded and illegal stunt to get their way after a vote by the congregation failed to accomplish their goal? This isn't the first time that we have caught them in a lie. Isn't it obvious that there is a lack of integrity in the leadership of our church?

Hear a recording of the scripted "business session" fiasco in the May 11, 9:15 service here. A similar episode happened at the beginning of the 11:01 service. This should not suprise anyone. After all, Jerry Sutton told everyone how he runs the church back on May 1 (hear those words here). Read the latest Tennessean article about this sham "vote" here.

Read here what the church's own bylaws say about a member's right to vote on ALL church business. This was violated on Sunday. Read here what Roberts Rules of Order has to say about "Voting by Ballot" to dismiss members and how "the main object of this form of voting is secrecy" and should not require a signature on the ballot. This is also a link to the on-line version of RROO.

For clarity and completeness, here is what the current TRBC bylaws say:

 Article I, Section 4. - Rights of Members

1)     Every member of the church may participate in the Lord's Supper administered by the church.

2)     Every member of the church is entitled to vote at all elections and on all questions submitted to the church in conference, provided the member is present or provision has been made for absentee balloting.

3)     Every member of the church may be considered by the membership as a candidate for elective offices and positions of ministry in the church according to the eligibility identified in the Bylaws and/or policies of this church.

 Article I, Section 6. - Discipline of Members

1)     The standards of membership are found in the church's covenant and beliefs as stated in the church's Constitution.

2)     Should a member violate those standards in ways that damage the church's witness and/or welfare, the Pastor and Deacon Officers will take every reasonable measure to resolve the problem redemptively in accord with Matthew 18:12-17.

3)     If it becomes necessary for the church to take action to exclude a member, a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the church members voting is required to declare the person to be no longer a member of the church. Upon evidence of the excluded person's repentance and reformation, the church may restore to membership any person previously excluded, upon request of the excluded person and by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the church members voting.

Many times we have heard Jerry Sutton say “Our bylaws trump Roberts Rules of Order” and they indeed do so as is pointed out as follows:

 Article IV, Section 4. - Parliamentary Rules

Unless otherwise stated in the Bylaws, the authority for parliamentary rules of procedure for all business meetings of the church shall be Robert's Rules of Order, Revised (latest edition). The authority for the spirit of all meetings shall be God's Holy Word.

Note what is highlighted in RED. The important part of this statement is "Unless otherwise stated in the Bylaws..."

In a nutshell, this statement implies “We have tried to cover all of the bases.  However, if something comes up that we didn’t think of, Robert’s Rules of Order (RROO) is to be applied to that circumstance”. This is just common sense.

Since the bylaws specifically state that “Every member of the church is entitled to vote at all elections and on all questions submitted to the church...” each and every vote by a member must be counted or the bylaws are being violated.  This is specific.  It does not say “The accused do not get to vote.” because RROO does not apply to this subject since the bylaws have already addressed this topic specifically and the bylaws say – EVERY MEMBER OF THE CHURCH IS ENTITLED TO VOTE AT ALL ELECTIONS AND ON ALL QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE CHURCH.

In the case of this "vote" on Sunday, it is clear from the above that the motion that was presented VIOLATED OUR BYLAWS. Something that cannot be legally done.

All that this group has ever asked is for the bylaws of the church to be followed and to then follow Robert's Rules Of Order if the bylaws were not specific AS ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4 OF THE BYLAWS DIRECTS US TO DO.

WHAT HAPPENED SUNDAY, MAY 11 WAS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE BYLAWS OF OUR CHURCH AND THE RIGHTS OF ITS MEMBERS.