Please Pass the Transparency | Part Two

December 21, 2015

Dr. Rick Patrick | Senior Pastor
First Baptist Church, Sylacauga, AL

Click HERE for Part One.

3. Our Scripted Conventions
I have attended every SBC Annual Meeting in this century—sixteen straight from 2000 through 2015. The process of decision making used to fascinate me, as ours is a much larger deliberative body than Congress. Any messenger can go to a microphone, identify himself and pretty much say anything as he makes a motion, proposes a resolution or asks a question to an Entity President, leaving the false impression of spontaneity. Unfortunately, in almost Hunger Games fashion, the emperor and puppet master is controlling the entire game, and the outcome has already been predetermined—if not by God, at least by those on the platform. In the case of motions, anything of substance is simply referred to a board of trustees. (See item two above.) In the case of resolutions, they are neatly numbered and presented to a committee in which nearly all of them will be declined without coming to the floor of the convention for any discussion. In the case of questions to Entity Presidents, these leaders are all well versed in extemporaneous speaking, dispatching even the most probing questions by transitioning to their talking points, blustering and filibustering until the allotted time has expired.

Communication experts talk about meta-communication and the fact that most of one’s message is actually imparted visually. In this theater of the convention, one sees a lowly peasant at microphone number seven, dressed in nice but casual clothes, lurking in poor lighting, whose shadowy image is magnified on the full screen for all to see. Like Oliver asking for more porridge, he dares to ask for the permission to speak. When granted, he must first introduce himself, in contrast to the glowing introductions received by those on the platform wearing their finest clothes and standing under the brightest lights, often coming to their microphones to the sound of the crowd’s grateful applause. At the floor microphone level, there is an annoying sound system delay creating a measure of mental confusion causing the speaker to pause and interrupt their cadence. This results in the stilted and slow speech pattern of a Southern Baptist at their first Catholic Communion service.

In other words, the theater of the convention does not really permit the opportunity for a fair and dignified exchange of ideas. Even if a superb communicator does manage to overcome the obstacles mentioned above, there is a three-minute time limit for sharing concerns from the floor, but no time limit for the initiatives being presented by our committees. Nearly everyone in the hall is ready to approve what the leaders on the platform have cooked up so we can finish our business on time and hit the buffet line. Finally, should the impossibly rare scenario come to pass in which a resolution that has been declined or a motion that has been referred is challenged successfully so that the matter does come to the floor for deliberation, and under the further unlikely scenario that the motion or resolution passes, it has sometimes been the case that the executives and trustees of an entity will simply ignore the vote of the Southern Baptist Convention, and do whatever it was that they wanted to do in the first place. In spite of the well-known adage, you just might be able to fight City Hall, but you definitely do not stand a chance against the Southern Baptist Convention—and that is not necessarily a good thing.

4. Our Dismissive Communications
It has been my privilege to correspond in writing and to communicate by telephone with communications officers from several of our Southern Baptist organizations. When responding to my questions, each person conducted themselves in a Christ-like and professional manner while proceeding to provide me with absolutely no useful information whatsoever about my concerns. In some cases, I was told the information was simply not available. In other cases, my questions were referred to others and then ignored. In still other cases, I was simply assured that the trustees were handling the situation. Again, while everything on an interpersonal level was kind and polite, in each case it was clear to me that the goal of the information officer was primarily to handle the inquirer and not really to answer the inquiry.

Although the attitudes displayed were neither patronizing nor condescending, this practice of communicating with the public without ever really producing the goods is somehow intrinsically insulting. Skilled communications professionals can perfect the art of speaking and writing about a subject with great articulation while completely avoiding the direct consideration of all unpleasant subjects. Consider, for example, a hypothetical letter from King Herod’s Director of Communications as he writes a letter to Elizabeth who has inquired about her son John’s safety:

Dear Elizabeth,

On behalf of King Herod, let me thank you for your interest in the well being of John the Baptist. I can assure you that we are monitoring this situation with great personal interest ourselves. I can indeed confirm that John recently spent quite some time here at the castle as a personal guest of the King, providing him with extensive marriage and family counseling. The last time anyone remembers seeing John was at a social engagement not long ago in which Herod’s daughter Salome was dancing for the King. Although we have no specific information to substantiate this claim, it is believed that during this great celebration, John did surprise everyone present by sticking his head in for just a moment. Sadly, since that time, no further reports concerning his whereabouts have been received in our office. Should we discover anything new, we will be sure to give you a heads up. Please be assured of our deep appreciation for your interest in this mutual concern.


King Herod’s Communications Director

In the blogging world, whenever I express some type of concern with a Christian individual or organization, I can always count on a few brothers to whip out Matthew 18 and ask if I have spoken with the individual or the board personally. (If every newspaper journalist or television broadcaster had to speak personally with their subject before ever reporting the news or sharing an opinion regarding a newsmaker, it would absolutely shut the media down!) One of the reasons I feel at peace presenting informed opinions on such matters without necessarily contacting the organization first is that every time I try, I just get this same run around, boilerplate, official sounding response that never, ever, answers the question.

5. Our Trusting Congregations
In recent years, churches have become more sophisticated in the measures being taken to improve child security and safety. The use of background checks and the installation of a two adult rule are employed to help keep children safe in a world containing child predators whose method of operation is to come to church to be close to children in an environment where everyone is trusting and the parents are often preoccupied with socializing or various other ministry-related tasks.

Unfortunately, we bring this same environment of naïve trust to our consideration of denominational matters. Are all of our boards balancing their budgets on the basis of the previous year’s giving pattern, without dipping into reserves? (No.) Are all of our Southern Baptist entities hiring current Southern Baptists for our top leadership posts? (No.) Do all our Southern Baptist churches require immersion baptism for membership? (No.) Are we sponsoring political forums to discuss social and moral issues to which we do not even invite legitimate and articulate Southern Baptist candidates? (Yes.) When we lay off workers during a financial shortfall, do we bother to implement the typical corresponding hiring freeze? (No.) Are we building bridges in our denomination to invite into our SBC fold the kind of charismatic churches and organizations represented by C.J. Mahaney and James MacDonald, who are already involved in SBC life, and the International House of Prayer churches, who may soon become involved? (Yes.) Do we plant churches through NAMB that have competing allegiances to other co-sponsoring groups and denominations? (Yes.) Are our leaders concerned that these groups might be using SBC dollars to establish churches actually more loyal to them? (No.) Are average Southern Baptists permitted to discover the salaries paid to our entity presidents through their donations? (No.) Are average Southern Baptists able to view the transcripts of the meetings informing our denomination’s long-range plan? (No.)

In the SBC today, those paying the bills are kept in the dark through a dependent press, secretive boards, scripted conventions, dismissive communications and trusting churches. May we please walk in the light and pass the transparency?

Leave a Comment:

All fields with “*” are required

 characters available

Jon Estes

The modern day church, to the convention, is like a person installing an app. Once you click install, the convention will have access to all your information and will use it to find ways to get more of your money. The question we need to ask is… What do we know about the profile and make up of that cpmpany (or individual) which we just gave all our informtion to? Mostly we do not care because we like the app. Yeah, it has a few bugs we want fixed but we keep leting them see how we operate so they know how to send us informationto whet our appetite to buy more of their product.

So we complain and keep bying the product. We call for bug fixes and a few come which pacifies us for a while, until we want more from the app.

My recommendation… UNINSTALL THE APP.

No, we have to much invested is the cry. Then keep sending them information… Keep getting the sharpest ads to keep you enslaved to the product… Keep complaining.

Bottom line is (it seems), does the good we get from the app outweigh the bad we do not like about the app.

How much money do you keep sending the child who knows not how to budget and appreciate the gift given?

The cycle continues to spin.


    While I share some of the concerns in Rick’s summary paragraph more than I share others…I agree that it seems the national & entity leaders do not give much ear to the regular members and churches.

    As a Younger (30’s) SBC pastor (non-senior pastor) at the same SBC church for the past 8.5 years, I can give my perspective, which assume some others share:
    -When I think about the way that our local Baptist church relates to the SBC, it is not as a “member” of a group, so much as the fact that the SBC is ONE OF the missions and ministry organizations that we support. It is not the only one, and as of this year, for the first time in our church’s 55 year history, the SBC is no longer the one that we support the most. We feel less connected, less represented, than we used to. Now, part of this is our own fault, as we rarely if ever attend state or national conventions…but part of that is because, as Rick describes…when we attend, it seems there is no reason for us to be there.

    Part of this makes me sad, but on the other hand, because of the detachment mentioned above, I see things differently than Rick. While technically, our relation to the SBC is the same: Pastors in Cooperating SBC Churches, our emotional ties are different: Rick sees disfunction in the SBC and says “WE have some problems,” whereas I see the same things and say, “THEY have some problems.”

    I’m not saying my view is better than Rick’s…in fact if the SBC has any hope of turning things around, it will need people like Rick with heart-driven by-in to make changes. Otherwise, all the prayers for revival will not help it, not because God can’t bring revival, but because if local churches experience revival and have godly leaders looking at where to invest for kingdom work, they may decide to pass up the SBC for something else.

    I think “un-installing the app” is what you are going to continue to see gradually over years and years, unless SBC leadership decides to make some changes, one of those areas being transparency. But while a few may choose to completely dis-associate, others will simply lower the amount of contributions even more than they arleady have. They will re-direct their giving to Lottie Moon, or to designated sbc ministries, or simply to non-sbc ministries…where-ever they believe their money will be best used.

William Thornton

Try something other than a multi page laundry list of complaints.

Eg: “I emailed soandso at X entity and asked for the salary range of executive employees. Here is the answer I got.”

Quote them, by name…unless you just want to complain in general.

    Rick Patrick


    I could easily mention by name the employee at NAMB who failed to provide the church plant information I requested, the employee at IMB who failed to report the salary information I requested, and the trustee at the ERLC who dismissed my concern about the non-Southern Baptist church affiliation of high ranking executive hires.

    The question regarding how specific I get in airing the details publicly boils down to this: “Am I really seeking to stir up a fight here or am I merely identifying a communication pattern that needs to change?” I view this article in the latter category. I see this as a general, across-the-board problem in SBC life, and so I write about it generally.

    I’m just not going to pick on a Southern Baptist four days before Christmas, but I don’t mind telling all of them, no matter the agency, “Take us seriously and share the information. If you don’t have it, get it. Pass the transparency.”


    There is also the likelyhood that whatever employee he spoke with at NAMB or IMB is NOT the one responsible for determining what information is public or avaliable…so naming the messenger would needlessly bring negativity to them that they are not directly responsible for.


      Andy, that is definitely part of the problem. One could stay in the system bounced around and played for a long time trying to get honest information. I am a bit confused why a movement so focused on authority does not follow leadership principles when it comes to other people’s money.

      There is absolutely nothing wrong with publicly calling on a non profit using OPM to be more transparent. There is nothing wrong with drawing attention to a lack of transparency. These are not private businesses.

      I do understand that perhaps William wants to define parameters. A while back he was asking about NAMB and came away praising Ezell. We still don’t know how much money was spent on Acts 29 start ups. But we are seeing story after story on its shepherding cult tactics and devastation of those who dared question the leaders.

    Scott Shaver

    Will Thornton:

    The so-called “multi page laundry list of complaints” doesn’t seem to be offending anybody on this thread but you. Wonder why.

    Could it be that you’re a shill for the establishment as well? Why do you want names? You would complain of slander if names were mentioned.

    It matters not whether SBCers complain in general or in specificity. Nobody listens or responds except the defenders of the status quo. That would be you my friend.


    William, notice how they won’t mention Patterson bringing a Muslim in to SWBTS without even the Trustees noticing. Oh trust me, they’ll find an excuse as to why that doesn’t count. No agenda here. Move along.

      Rick Patrick

      That episode was a personal witnessing encounter that began with the President of the Seminary overseas doing missions work. Patterson had admitted an atheist previously at Criswell College resulting in that person coming to know the Lord. While his aim in this case was also evangelism, he recognized that a rule had technically been broken and offered a heartfelt apology at the convention that honestly reduced me to tears.

      Incidentally, the SWBTS Trustees dealt with that particular matter clearly and decisively. The student withdrew from the seminary, the President apologized and the policies were clarified. Rather than being secretive, it was perhaps one of the most open and transparent news events of that entire year. In fact, I think the handling of that specific event stands in great contrast to the issues discussed here.


        Yes, it was opened and transparent AFTER the fact. And by the way, I defended Patterson when all of that happened. Got a lot of people against me to for it. But my point is that there definitely seems to be an agenda here. And just like you had an explanation for this, they have an explanation for them. And it seems like many of the things you mentioned you actually know. Why? Because they are being transparent.

      Scott Shaver

      I’ve got no problem whatsoever mentioning the debacle of Paige Patterson at SWBT including his stealth Muslim student.
      How does that go along with your stereotype Tyler?

      Will Thornton:
      There’s never been any “incentive for transparency” among contemporary SBC leaders. Some of us are even less impressed with your constant droning about misguided SBC criticism. They’ve earned every syllable.


      Tyler, it is hard to hide an actual Muslim amid Baptists. :o) Not so hard to hide how OPM money is spent by the entity leaders with fawning trustees. And I am no fan of Patterson. I am just a fan of common sense. Surely you can do better with examples.


      Tyler, what does it even mean to say “without even the Trustees noticing”? Do you expect the trustees to review admissions documents. I imagine they don’t “notice” any particular student. In this case it is plainly the case that Dr. Patterson assumed he had the authority to make this exception and did so because he saw it as the right thing to do. That is exactly how far the issue went, despite the drum-beat of the usual suspects.

William Thornton

Fine, Rick. complain in general, don’t share names or specific questions that were unanswered or deflected. There’s little incentive for more transparency if this is you are willing to do. You raised the general complaint. I’m not impressed with your desire to do anything about it.

    Rick Patrick

    Fortunately, my purpose in life is not to impress William Thornton. I believe I am, in fact, doing something about a problem simply by raising an issue—even when the issue I raise is a general one broadly applicable across various institutions in SBC life.

    Perhaps I will risk stating just one more problem, choosing to phrase it generally: “It is a shame in SBC life when the general concern over a lack of transparency is deflected and dismissed by needlessly rigid calls for specificity.”


    “Fine, Rick. complain in general, don’t share names or specific questions that were unanswered or deflected. There’s little incentive for more transparency if this is you are willing to do. You raised the general complaint.”

    This is rather strange. Why does Rick need to provide a “Christian” non profit using OPM an “incentive” for more transparency? What sort of people are we dealing with here? Very strange considering the recent “crisis” at the IMB.

    Is it your view that someone has to ask in the right way (whatever that is) for an SBC entity to be honest and transparent? Shouldn’t that be their SOP, in the first place? So if people don’t ask, then anything goes?

    As I recall, you asked NAMB and we still don’t know how much money has gone into Acts 29 or other “reformed only” church plants.

    In this day and age, there is no reason not to publish quarterly budgets with very detailed line items online for SBC pew sitters to access. Oh, I forgot. We actually have a lockbox with meeting minutes in them. So much for transparency.

      William Thornton

      Rick doesn’t ‘need’ to do anything and I join him in any call for more openness and transparency, something I’ve done for a long time; however, since such is lacking, I would rather see specifics from any entity (e.g., “We do not provide that information to churches that support us” or “That information is kept secret by order of trustees”) with an executive-level or trustee officer name attached to it. Let them be held accountable for not answering questions from loyal, supportive SBs like Rick and myself. Seems to me general gripes are more easily finessed by denominational employees than specific questions on matters on which their answers (or non-answers) will be publicly disclosed.

      NAMB doesn’t ask and keep records of all the supporters of NAMB-related church plants, although the only field supervisor I asked this of said that the planters he supervised were expected to follow policy closely in this area. NAMB’s policy may not suit Rick et al but they have one and it is public.

      Have a nice Christmas.


        William, I wish it worked that way. They should not have to be asked to be transparent and accountable. These are grown men who make a living off Jesus and should know better. The first challenge is to make pew supporters aware there is a transparency problem. These days most are not involved in SBC entity life as they used to be. Some may not even be aware they are in an SBC church by design. You see this with both the seeker types and big time with the SBC YRR churches.

        That would make being top/down and secretive about money even easier. I mean how many even know there is a lockbox with secret information they paid to have generated? And I think the top/down secrecy was the goal all along.. Get the pew sitters signing membership covenants and beholden to the leaders at church who are NOT accountable but to their band of yes men elders and it becomes a sin to question.

        What we see happening in the SBC parallels our culture, sadly.

        “NAMB doesn’t ask and keep records of all the supporters of NAMB-related church plants, although the only field supervisor I asked this of said that the planters he supervised were expected to follow policy closely in this area. NAMB’s policy may not suit Rick et al but they have one and it is public.”

        NAMB gave church plant money to organizations/people who had a very public and enforceable “Reformed only” policy. What on earth is NAMB policy? If it is they follow the BFM? It has been noted in my neck of the woods that many YRR churches are preaching a series on the BFM. I was told it is a series promoted to pastors by Lifeway.

        So, the bottom line is that it is good to blog about the problem in general to the general SBC public. This is not a Matthew 18 exercise. And the information that is sought could easily be put online. What on earth to Christians who make a living off Jesus have to hide?

        Scott Shaver

        Obviously Will,

        Rick Patrick is not the only one concerned (not suited) about NAMB “policy”.

        Your answer to Rick individually pretty much exemplifies the response (or lack thereof) given by SBC administrators to the whole spectrum of Southern Baptist constituents and contributors. Pretty arrogant in my opinion.


“Eg: “I emailed soandso at X entity and asked for the salary range of executive employees. Here is the answer I got.”

And if one did not like the answer or disagrees with it, the tactic has been to go after the person who asks questions they don’t like. It becomes a PR/image management battle. It is framed as a witch hunt. Remember, their role model leader implied that marginalizing people is a good thing. (Yes, I am well aware his words have been re-spun.

After all that has taken place over the last 10 years I cannot understand how you cannot see we are dealing with grand game players. But as long as you defend or on their side of shepherding cult tactics and image management, they won’t have a problem with you.



I commend this article. At the same time, I can’t help but think about what funds all the dysfunction documented above; isn’t it the CP? You recently wrote that not paying into the CP was “great commission evasion” but now you write about these problems,

How do you think they will stop if churches keep forking over CP money?

    Rick Patrick

    Thank you for your kind words regarding the article. You raise a very good point about continuing to pay into a system in which we have so little accountability. Over time, this lack of transparency may erode the system even further. I think, to a degree, it is already happening.

    On a personal note, I can explain the fact that my church continues to give strongly through the CP a bit like I explain my support of the federal government in paying my taxes. No, I do not agree with the direction of our nation (or our denomination) as it is being led by our present administration, but I am nevertheless supportive as a faithful American and Southern Baptist. Granted, there are differences, since paying taxes is legally required, but the concept of continuing to support an organization financially while working to change it is a time-honored practice.


      I know you’re always going to pay the taxes you owe because you have a Christian obligation to do so.

      I know you will engage in missions for the same reasons.

      What would it take, though, for you to stop giving through to the CP?

        Rick Patrick

        That’s a great question. I don’t really have a litmus test or a line drawn in the sand. I suppose if Russell Moore endorsed Hillary Clinton for President, I might decide that I had had enough and consider dropping CP support—although I would wish that it were possible to separate the ERLC portion from the rest. If someone like J. D. Greear or Mark Dever ever became President of Southwestern or New Orleans Seminary, I can imagine just throwing in the towel and saying, “This is just not who I am.”

        I really do love Southern Baptists. When I was lost, these are the people who told me about Jesus. If I ever stop giving through CP, it will not be a case of me saying, “I am leaving Southern Baptists.” It will be more of a case of, “Southern Baptists have left me by not standing for what we used to stand for.”


          Moore might vote for Hilary but I doubt he’d tell the rest of us.

          As we both know, the SBC predates the start of the CP over years. For those years, you could support the seminaries alone if you wanted.

          You still can.


            Moore is already telling his followers who not to vote for in how he positions his media remarks and talking points. I am disappointed he has any gravitas at all. One would think he would have used it to warn about Driscoll. . He has plenty following his party line. You use his same positioning in declaring whether a grown up decision regarding taxes or supporting an entity is “Christian” or not. You probably don’t even realize you are doing it. That is how indoctrination works.

              Scott Shaver

              “Moore is already telling his followers who not to vote for”

              At the same time asking those of us who are “non” or “nominally” Christian on the basis of his politics to consider a special year-end gift to the ERLC.

              Fat chance.


                “At the same time asking those of us who are “non” or “nominally” Christian on the basis of his politics to consider a special year-end gift to the ERLC.”

                Oh my! Seriously?

                Can anyone give me brief summary of how the ERLC is funded. Does it receive a percentage of CP dollars? I doubt Russ Moore or Joe Carter (one of the non SBC employees) are working for peanuts. :o)


                  The ERLC budget is $3.4M this year. It is funded by outside donations as well as a cut of CP intake.

                  Every church that gives CP money funds the ERLC.


                    At this point in the game, it would not surprise me if some of Hillary’s bundles are part of the donations. Moore seems to be doing her and the DC establishment a service right now.

                    The ERLC is such a bad idea. A waste of CP dollars. We lay off the over 50 career missionaries and give 3 mill so Russ Moore can build his brand with the DC establishment. It is ironic he does not talk about Patriarchy like he used to. (Wink)

                    He is offended by Trump but silent on the “Christian’ Driscoll for years. Hypocrite.


” I know you’re always going to pay the taxes you owe because you have a Christian obligation to do so.”

Seth, I am well aware of how dumbed down education has become so let’s talk citizen “obligation” in a representative republic. First you would need to study civics and history for a baseline so you can understand properly. So what would be your line in the sand? Half your income in taxes fees, licenses,etc, etc? Would you say it is a Christian obligation to vote? If not, why? If yes, then you might be partly responsible for those high taxes.

You won’t find your answer in 1st Century Palestine. It operated on a caste system. But, historical events decided that grown ups could govern themselves. Quite a radical idea. I suggest you look into it instead of following so blindly. Unless, of course you do not find that concept “Christian”.

If a grown up sees enough corruption over time to make a personal grown up decision to withhold their hard earned dollars from the IMB and its 6 figure officially, Not only is it none of your business but it might just be the “Christian” thing to do.



    I don’t really agree with Rick’s tax analogy with the CP so I’m not going to go down that road with you. I don’t think the CP falls under the umbrella of civics.

    With regards to CP, I don’t fund it. As a matter of stewardship, I think the Christian thing to do is not fund the CP.

    Maybe you should take the time to Google me. You can judge for yourself if my extensive education is “dumbed-down” and check into my extensive work on the issue of the CP.


      C.P.A. and Seminary student Seth has written a free ebook on issues with the Cooperative Program. The intro by J. D. Hall really turned me off but I trudged forward and found it to be well-written and extensively footnoted though ultimately unconvincing. Seth does seem to oversell the issue, but he cannot be criticized for blindly supporting the CP.

      But, I do blindly support the CP because I trust the people who introduced me to the CP and I love the mission of the CP. I do think that the best way to move forward is to remove the veil of secrecy that makes Seth’s conclusions possible to believe. There should be no secrets in the CP, CP-funded entities, or SBC owned entities. Revealing truth is how corruption is conquered.


        Thanks for reading, Donald.

        I may have cited one Rick Patrick a couple of times in that e-book, especially about the ERLC. :-)

        I’m not one to blindly follow anything. I love the evangelistic mission of the churches of our convention. The CP is just a mechanism to fund it and I think we can do better. It’s best we remember that the mission is first of the church and then of the churches collectively (the convention). It’s not really the mission of the CP, I just wouldn’t put it that way.

        I am with you that the veil of secrecy should be removed. I have to ask, though, as long as there enough people who will blindly support the CP, what’s the incentive for the veil to be removed?


          While ultimately unconvinced, it was not due to a lack of information in your ebook — which is why I admitted to blindly supporting the CP. You ask a great question about incentives and admit I fear that in cutting back CP dollars we might ultimately lose too much. So, my motivations are fear and trust. I really appreciate your voice in this matter.

          I am not saying you’re wrong, but I am not ready for such a paradigm shift.



            I guess I’m having trouble understanding what we’d lose (besides the ERLC).

            If a given church has $10,000 it wants to give it can still give it.

            Maybe $8k to the IMB and $2k split between each seminary.)

            What do you think would be lost if people gave like that (that is so important to hold on to that we pay for things we don’t like to keep it)


Seth, thanks for the suggestion. I will google you. Perhaps I misunderstood –which will not be the first time. I see Moore as more of a political opportunist than a theological ideologue so that probably threw me off a bit..


Oh dear me, Seth. You write for Pulpit and Pen?


    “Oh dear me, Seth. You write for Pulpit and Pen?”
    Lydia, I don’t think I have agreed with one of your posts in anything I’ve every seen….but I think this one might be the first ;)


    I certainly do…and we are big on transparency and accountability. We have much agreement with what Rick has written here.

      Scott Shaver

      And JD Hall would be accountable to whom?


        His church.


          My particularly dislike for J.D. Hall stems from his Crusade against Ergun Caner which went way too far; especially with his harassment of Braxton. I know that he has expressed some regrets, but I’m having a big time getting over it. I know and like Ergun’s brother Emir and that whole business has really hardened my heart for anything associated with J.D. Hall.

          I do not think however, that you have to answer for J.D. Hall and only mentioned him out of my personal dislike – not to start something.



          Seth, when guys like James White and Tom Buck are distancing away from you, that’s probably a good sign that theres not much accountability.

Leave a Comment:

All fields with “*” are required

 characters available