![\"\"](\"https:\/\/baptistnews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/judge-dorfman-cropped-2.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nGrant Dorfman<\/p>\n
Texas Business Court Judge Grant Dorfman dismissed the entire case July 15 by appealing to what\u2019s called the \u201cecclesial abstention doctrine.\u201d This legal precept \u2014 that secular courts cannot adjudicate matters of internal church governance and theology \u2014 has been prominent in news related to other court cases in recent years. The same doctrine, for example, was used in federal court to knock down a long-running defamation suit brought by Will McRaney<\/a> against the Southern Baptist Convention North American Mission Board.<\/p>\n Plaintiffs, who organized themselves in a group called Jeremiah Counsel, contended the wrongs they alleged were more than ecclesial in nature but were, in fact, violations of Texas law governing nonprofit corporations.<\/p>\n The plaintiffs charged the defendants \u2014 Ben Young, Ed Young, Lee Maxcy and Dennis Brewer \u2014 of conspiring to steal church assets and take away the congregation\u2019s right to choose its own pastor. They accuse Young of enacting a series of changes beginning in 2023 \u201cto secure the ascendance of his son, Ben Young \u2026 as senior pastor to Second Baptist\u2019s 94,000 congregants.\u201d<\/p>\n Within these charges are details of how a congregational business meeting was called, how notice of that meeting was given, and what information was provided to congregants about what they would vote on.<\/p>\n Ben Young<\/p>\n Two important ideas came out of Dorfman\u2019s ruling: Officers and directors of a nonprofit corporation owe their fiduciary responsibility to the corporation, not to individual members of the corporation; and churches as Texas nonprofits do not face the same scrutiny in notices of meetings as other nonprofits.<\/p>\n On the latter point he wrote: \u201cThe Business Organizations Code draws a clear line between secular nonprofits and churches with respect to the notice required to call a meeting: \u2018A corporation other than a church shall provide written notice of the place, date and time of a meeting of the members of the corporation and, if the meeting is a special meeting, the purpose or purposes for which the meeting is called. The Code does not require written notice, or a stated purpose, for a church corporation like Second Baptist.\u201d<\/p>\n On the former point, he wrote: \u201cTexas law makes quite clear, however, that officers and directors of a for-profit corporation do not owe fiduciary duties to individual shareholders. The duty is owed to the corporation. \u2026 The same rule holds true for nonprofit corporations like Second Baptist Church.\u201d<\/p>\n To allow individual members of a church to hold leaders accountable in this way could create chaos, the judge ruled. \u201cThis is not some hyper-technical distinction. At minimum, one suspects Second Baptist would find itself hard-pressed to fill officer and director positions were this court to decree that they are potentially subject to civil liability to any one of the 94,000 members due to disagreements about proper church governance or whether they made incomplete (or no) disclosures on the subject.\u201d<\/p>\n But on the larger issue, Dorfman said the Texas court cannot answer the question of what constitutes a \u201cbiblical church\u201d as would be required to sort out the disagreements on church governance at Second Baptist.<\/p>\n However, also at play in the ruling is the exact wording of the church\u2019s articles of incorporation and bylaws. It appears the court theoretically could envision a case where a church\u2019s governing documents were so explicit as to prevent what happened at Second Baptist. But that was not the case here.<\/p>\n Senior Pastor Ben Young \u2014 who was chosen for the role by his own father, Ed Young, thanks to the contested bylaws changes \u2014 issued a brief statement: \u201cWe received word that the judge has ruled in our favor in the matter before the court and we are deeply grateful. Jay Sekulow<\/p>\n Jay Sekulow, who represented Second Baptist through the American Center for Law and Justice, also issued a statement: \u201cWe are pleased with the court\u2019s well-reasoned decision. From the very beginning of this case, we have maintained that decisions about church governance belong to the church, not the civil courts.\u00a0As Judge Dorfman recognized, the church autonomy doctrine prevents civil courts from becoming involved in matters that are at the heart of a church\u2019s internal governance. We couldn\u2019t agree more.\u201d<\/p>\n John Strawn, attorney for the plaintiffs, told the Houston Chronicle<\/a> the judge misinterpreted the doctrine of church autonomy: \u201cJust using a word like \u2018biblical\u2019 in an announcement does not give you a get-out-of-jail free card.\u201d<\/p>\n The suit had been scheduled for trial beginning July 27 in the Texas 11th Division Business Court.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Related:<\/p>\n Houston lawsuit is a tale of pastoral succession, megachurch wealth and family dynasty<\/a><\/p>\n More accusations fly at Second Baptist Houston<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n
We remain committed to the work God has called us to through this, his church.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n