Monday Morning Insights

Photo of Todd
    .

    And Now There’s a Lawsuit… 49 Nashville Church Members Sue Two Rivers Pastor

    Bookmark and Share

    Sutton lost a bid to become president of the denomination last year. He has served for more than two decades as leader of Nashville’s Two Rivers Baptist Church.

    Scott Hutchings, the church’s executive pastor, has acknowledged that the church paid about $4,300 for a reception for Sutton’s daughter, but said the event was open to all members.

    He said Sutton personally paid for another separate reception outside the church.

    SOURCE

    Stuff like this really make me mad. There is so much wrong with this... where to even begin?... Members of a Southern Baptist megachurch are suing their prominent pastor, the Rev. Jerry Sutton, for allegedly misappropriating finances and for refusing to allow them to inspect church records. The lawsuit filed late last week in Chancery Court follows allegations that Sutton spent church money on his daughter's wedding. The 49 people who joined to file the lawsuit accuse Sutton of failing to abide by church rules and punishing those who question his authority.

    Comments

    if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.

    1. MG on Wed, September 19, 2007

      Were the pastor to be forthcoming about this request for reimbursement by the church I doubt there would have been any problem, the problem arises when a pastor misuses the funds of the church for personal things that are not the churches responsibility. Not only does this cause concern regarding potential IRS violations, but it is clear that the trust of the members has been violated by the pastor for the price of $4,300. Seems shameful to me when a little bit of upfront openness might have prevented the whole mess.

    2. tony on Wed, September 19, 2007

      Evidently someone other than Sutton decided that it would be okay for the church to pay for this event. Seems like 49 people are ticked off about something. I don’t know about the closed books policy, though.  Depending on how this all falls, the books will be opened eventually anyway.

    3. GR on Wed, September 19, 2007

      I am sure their would be a lot of people upset if they didn’t get to be a part of the “Pastor’s Daughter’s Wedding”. I am also sure that since he had to do something for the entire church (so that people’s feelings would not be hurt) that the decision was made for the church to pay for it. It became a church-wide event at that point.


      Church people can be the most hurtful people in the world sometimes. If these people put as much effort into winning people to Christ in their community as they do in attacking their pastor who nows what would happen.


      It is a shame that they have put a damper on this pastor and his daughter’s wedding.


      Shame on them!!!!!!

    4. Chris Reeder on Wed, September 19, 2007

      When it is a pastor’s family and the church is “expected” to be invited, I think the church should assist in the wedding reception costs. I learned years ago to always take care of God’s man and his family!


      Remember, you can never out give God.


      (note: I do not know all the small details… based on what I read here)


      On the closed books, the books should be open for viewing… if not, even if there is nothing “fishy”… it appears that way.

    5. Peter Hamm on Wed, September 19, 2007

      I agree that it’s the closed-books thing that troubles me.

    6. JR on Wed, September 19, 2007

      Are you kidding me?  No one else sees this as a gross misappropriation of funds?  If the “leaders” in the church wanted to pay for the reception how about taking up a special offering and letting the people decide if they want to pay for it.  Can other members take advantage of this “perk” and have their daughter’s reception paid for as long as it’s open to the whole church?  How about the executive pastor?  Or the eduction pastor?  Or the head of the deacons?  Since when is the senior pastor so much more favored and entitled to these things?


      Personally, I’ve seen too much of this in the church and am more sickened by this type of spending than I am by the lawsuit.  When pastors and church leaders hide their finances and refuse to show them (which according to state corporate laws members have a right to) then they leave people questioning and some feel they have no other recourse but to file a lawsuit.  What about church leaders skirting the laws?

    7. DanielR (a different Daniel) on Wed, September 19, 2007

      We might want to do a little more reading/research before beginning the condemnations.  My understanding was that they had a reception planned and the church leadership felt they also needed to have a reception that would be open to the entire church so the church and the Pastor split the cost of the “open” reception.  Sounds reasonable to me.


      The closed books thing is troubling.  I agree that the situation possibly could have been defused if they had opened the books and had the transparency to reassure everyone that everything was above board and legitimate.  That might have helped assuage the feelings regarding financial misappropriation.  The other stuff would probably still be an issue.

    8. Mark Bass on Wed, September 19, 2007

      Does anybody believe in the authority of the Word of God these days??? 


      1 Corinthians 6:1-8 speaks about believers suing each other in front of secular courts.  They’ve already lost even if they win the case b/c the name of Christ is drug through the mud.  If the Word of God says so then we should do so.


      What about church discipline???  Where did that go???


      Concerning the money…Churches need to realize that every penny they spend is money that was given as a sacrificial offering to the Lord.  That’s a big responsibility to handle offerings given to the Lord.

    9. Jim in NJ on Wed, September 19, 2007

      When the financial books are closed to the church members and regular attenders, it breeds suspicion that something is not right.


      I understand if the leadership felt that the entire church should be invited to a reception since some people who were not invited might feel excluded. I also understand that it would have been a financial burden to expect the pastor to pay for it. However, they should have announced that the church leadership had made the decision and the church was paying for it before the event. Then everyone would have known what was happening. Individuals might disagree with the decision, but it would be out in the open.


      I have seen 1Cor 6:1-8 used to discourage lawsuits among believers. Just re-reading it, I get the sense that Paul is telling the church to settle disputes within the church. What happens when the church refuses to handle the dispute fairly? I don’t know if that is the situation here, but refusing to open the church’s books does not seem to be an attitude of wanting to settle the dispute.


      Unfortunately the church at large has been smeared again and again in the press for financial misappropriation and theft among a few. The only way we can fight the world’s suspicion is to be open and above reproach in dealing with money.


      I speak as a church Treasurer for a church of about 500 attenders (not a megachurch). I have always made financial information open to anyone who asks. We have even made it policy that none of our pastors can sign a check (which requires two signatures).


      How can people trust the church when they talk about eternal things if they can’t trust the church in financial things?

    10. AH on Wed, September 19, 2007

      First, disagreement about spending priorities does not constitute misappropriation of funds including. People, especially God’s people, should avoid using such pejorative and loaded words when discussing such issues. Think of the defamation that could be inflicted on any of us everytime a member disagreed with an expenditure.


      Second, Paul’s writing are plain regarding brothers going to court before the world against other brothers. Those in disagreement with the specific expenditure should follow the Royal Law of love and deal with conflict within the structures of the local church. Often, people do not get the remedy they want within the structures so they take the matter elsewhere. In other words, the bylaws and consitution are just fine until I don’t get my way.

    11. Jan on Thu, September 20, 2007

      Not much more to say.  But just a side note.  When my husband and I married we were both staff members and felt that we had no choice but to have an open invitation wedding.


      It was a great burden financially to just provide cake and punch for the 600 who attended.


      I can see the church choosing to help out with this.

    12. lmdd on Thu, September 20, 2007

      This group, as I have read, wants not only to see the financial records but also walk out of the church with copies of everything from W2s to credit card receipts, as well as the membership roll.


      I do not believe, in this day and age, that a membership roll should be allowed to leave the premises of a church under any circumstances.  With identity theft, home invasion, etc., that kind of information in the hands of whoever wants it is just not right and I truly hope that the judge or whoever hears this case thinks about the privacy and safety of all of the members of this church.


      I think the wedding thing is a moot issue, as many churches practice this and the money was paid back in full soon after the reception.


      There seems to be a small faction whose opinions are different than the majority (as there have been reported 1500+ attenders on a weekly basis and 54 out of 1500 is a very small number) and who have decided that their opinions/demands are going to be met at any cost.


      I just pray that this will be settled in a more Christian-like way, if that is possible at this point.

    13. Bob on Mon, September 24, 2007

      Everybody’s wrong here. The pastor is wrong for allowing church funds to pay for a personal event, regardless of reasoning that the church should help pay for something he was obligated to because he was a staff member. The closed-books policy is also wrong. Both wrongs lend themselves to congregational mistrust. That will destroy a man’s ministry, and the pastor should understand that.


      These 49 members are compounding the wrong through their lawsuit. I’m sure they are rationalizing that thepastor forced them into taking this action, but it doesn’t wash.

    14. Sam Shaw on Mon, September 24, 2007

      It makes me really angry to hear of another church conflict that goes public.


      This is only the tip of the iceberg - for Two Rivers and for churches in general. There has been a great deal of activity below the surface, which eventually manifested itself in a lawsuit, a website, organizational meetings, petitions for the removal of a pastor, phone trees, etc.


      Dissatisfied church members from larger churches all over the country have networked together, learned from one another - and are actively seeking to “take their church back.”


      Did Sutton or church leaders do something wrong? I assume they are innocent unless proven guilty.


      Are the church books closed? I seriously doubt it. This is too easy a charge to make if you are unhappy.


      Are the members wrong in pursuing a lawsuit? Absolutely.


      It doesn’t matter who “wins” in this matter - the church is deeply wounded, the name of Christ is slandered, and students and children are scarred for years by the taste of the conflict.


      My hope is that the deacons of the church will stand tall and exercise church discipline with those who are violating clear Biblical principles.


      Without strong and authoritative leadership by godly lay leaders, the spiral will continue downward.

    15. adb on Mon, September 24, 2007

      I will remember this when my daughter gets married.  I will hold the event in another state so not to have to deal with church people and their opinions of our familys special day.


      As a Pastor I firmly believe the church should pay for the open reception!  I would invite most of the congregation I serve to the wedding, except for about 15 people who always find falt with everything about me, my family, or style of dress etc… If they desire to come the church should pay for it! 


      Remember this type of special occasion is a once in a life time moment for a daughter and she as well as her pastor father should not have to put up with stupid church politics on her special day! 


      Also, I would love those 15 people and serve them with all of my heart but I would NOT invite them to my daughters wedding if I am paying the bill!

    16. Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

      Post a Comment

    17. (will not be published)

      Remember my personal information

      Notify me of follow-up comments?

    Sponsors